The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1894-08-31
The 9emorrat.
SUGAR DUTIES IN HISTORY.
What Congress Has Done For The
Refiners During Thirty Years.

Under the tariff act Of 1864 the duty on
raw sugar not above No. ~ Dutch stand
arl was cents pound, and on raw sugar
above No. l2 and not above No. Is the
duty was So cents pound. On refined
sugar the duty was cents pound. Re-
duced to ad valorem, tine duties on raw
sugar under that tariff were above 20 per
cent. Although these duties Yielded con-
siderable public revenue, the main object
of legislation was TO protect the sugar re-
6ners by making discrimination of up
ward of one cent a pound in their favor.
The tariff of 1872 fixed the duty on raw
sugar above No. Z and not above No. 10
(the main importationl at 2 cents pound;
and on refined sugar at 81 pound max
ing discrimination Of Ia cents pound
in favor of the redners.
This proving not quite satisfactory to
the refners, the duty on raw sugar was
raised in 1875 to 2 cents pound plus 25
per cent ad valorem, and the duty on re-
fined sugar was raised to cents pound
plus % per cent ad valorem. There was
no Sugar Trust in those days, but mani
testify the trust has shown none of the
power that the sugar lobby then possessed
in the halls of Congress.
Il the tariff of 1888 another twist was
given to the sugar duties, always keeping
the interest of the refiners in froLt. The
duty on raw sugar was reduced to 2 cents
a pound. and the duty on refined sugar
was reduced to 80 cents pound-making
discrimination of Ia cents pound in
favcr of the refners. Under that tariff ths
average duty of refined sugar was upward
of 70 per cent ad valorem-so great wa
the fear of Senator Sherman, Senator Ali
son and the rest of the Republican states
men lest the manufacturers Of sugar should
be subjected to the ruinous competition o
the ''pauper labor" of Europe. 1t nees
not be said that during the operation o
the tariff Cf 1888 hardly pound Of refinet
sugar ives imported over The high tarit
WALL The sugar refners were the peculia
objects of the solicitude and favor of ii
Republican authors.
Then came the Mckinley tariff Of 1890
which, while nominally putting raw suga
on the free list, fixed tax of half cen
pound on the entire consumption Of re
fined sugar aSd gave a bounty Of 2 cents
pound to domestic producers. The efec
of this operation is to take upward of $40.
900, 600 year out of the pockets of Amer
ican consumers for the sole benefit Of th
Sugar Trust. and sl2,0Oo.OOO besides il
bounties When this aagi iOus measur
was devised for despoiling the publ
Treasury OF its revenues and fleeing con-
sumers the Sugar Trust WAS represente'
by powerful lobby in Washington. Bu
a scheme Of plumber which gives the trus
its rsw sugar free Of tax and subsidy o
half cen, on every pound it refnes wa
more than The most sanguine Of its agent
had reason to anticipate.
Con,rsst with this series OF Republican
sug4r duties from lS64 TO 1880 the snga
schedule of the new Law just passed. Thi
schedule, with lis 40 per cen; duty on raw
sugar, would put upward of so, ,0O0.0'
of revenue into The Treasury and save sl2,
OO0, 600 in bouuties, while reducing the dis
elimination in favor of refined sugar 4
one-eighth of a cent per pound If corrup
influences prevailed in he adjustment o
this schedule. what sinister influence
prompted the Republican legislation OF
sugar for The last 30 years? IL the Demo
cratic members Of the Senate Financ
Committee were undr the sway OF Ii
Sugar Trust, what insidious power wa
behind Senator Sherman, Senator Aldriel
and the other Republican members OF th
Senate Finante Committee when the
h framed the sugar schedule Of the Mckin
ley act? The tiuple truth is that this
the only example of legislation in Congres
in the last 80 years in which the demand
of the sugar refners have been subordi
, mated to considerations OF public reve1u
and to the interests Of the consumers