The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1894-08-11


the ad valorem duty.
So far as the mere meaning of
the term "diGferential tax" is con-
ccrned, this answers our cores
pondenps question, but we take 1t
that in his demand for full eX-
planation be- includes u request to
know why the "ditferential tax" is
insisted on so strcnuously by some
and resisted by others.
A duty on sugar is advocated by
tariff reformers because most of it
goes into the Treasury. Roughly
speaking, ninetenths of our sugar
comes from abroad while one tenth
is made at home. The tax puts
up the price of all sugar, but nine
tenths of the increase goes into the
Treasury, and only one-tenth to
the domestic producers. That is u
good deal preferable to paying five
dollars to the domestic producers
to put one dollar fnto the Treasury,
as is done by the tariff on some
articles, while in other cases the
tax yield no revenue at all, being
entirely for the benefit Of the do
nestle producer. This happens
when the tax is so high as to pre-
vent importations.
This is substantially the case
with the duty on refined. sugar as
it now exists, and the trusts desir-
rs that ii shall be the case under
the new tariff bill. 1t is intended
that no refined sugar shall be i'm
ported in commercial quantities.
No considerable amount would
probably be imported without the
ditferential duty ;for, while the rate
on both raw and refined sugar is 40
per cent. yet this is calculated on
the value, and as the refined is
worth more given quantity of it
pays more tax than the same
amount of raw sugar. This differ
ence would keep out refined sugar,
no doubt, so long as the domestic
refineries were satisfied with a
reasonable profit. But if they un.
dertook to put up the price above
theAfgure at which refined sugar
could be imported at profit they
would subject themselves to foreign
competition. Here is where the
"differential tax" comes it. 1t gives
the domestic refineries, that is, the
Sugar Trust, an additional margin
of one-eighth of Il cent pound, or
12I cents on the 100 pounds. They
can raise the price of sugar by that
much more without subjecting
themselves to competition from
abroad. The "differential''is there
fore, pure gift to the trust, or, to
put it in plain English, ''steal."
There may be those who think
that one-eighth of cent pound
is very. small matter. But when
it is remembered that the con.
sumption of sugar in the United
States is between four and five bill
lions of pounds yearly, a calcula.
tion will show that there are mil
lions in it for the trust. The "dif.
ferential tax" alone gives them
over five million year. If to this
we add the incidental protection
afforded by the 40 per cent. tax or
refined sugar, it is estimated that
the trust will get a bounty of $10,.
100000 per annum, or something
like half what the Mckinley Bill
gave it, The present tax on rein
ed sugar is half cent pound
which is better for the trust thar
the rate in the proposed bill. Bu
there is no reason why the Sugar
Trust should be permitted to ta,
the people to any amount, eXcep
that it has purchased Senators
enough to look after it's interests
who insolently say: "Either take
the German Bill or let the McKin
ley Bill remain unrepealed."