The Washington times., 1894-07-16

either Germany or England unless at prices
| substantially higher than United States prices.
| Fourth, that the attempt to secure in Eu-
rope even the one-ten.h part of our refined
| sugar consumption would greatly raise the
| foreign price of refined sugars.
Fifth, that compared with our refining
plants there is not single good-sized or eco
nomically working one in Europe.
Sixth, that the total capacity of the Ger
man exporting relneries could not be in
creased for years to come so as to supply any
large proportion of our consumption.
Between what Mr. Havemeyer does say and
what he does not say, he has put himself in
ridiculous light. He admits that the price Of
| sugar will be raised / cent a pound at least
above that ruling under the Mckinley bill.
He would probably agree-any one else
familiar with customs house matters would do
that the average duty on the sugars suf-
ficient to make pound OF refined, after the
customs house valuation has been reached by
deducting expenses of transportation, etc.,
ETC., and making calculation upon the basis
OF foreign price, will be below rather than
i
protection for his refined sugar under the
Senate schedule at least equal to that which
he now enjoys under the Mckinley law.
Again, Mr.. Hayemeyer asserts that the
proposed bill will give him only one-quarter
the protection that he enjoys under the Nc
Kinley law-admits that this is precisely so
cents per 100 pounds, and asserts that the sugar
trust profits were about 3siz cents per 100
pounds; also admits that his errand TO Washing
ton was successful, and that the present sched-
ule is fairly satisfactory, though not as high as
he might like TO have it. But if his present
protection is 60 cents per 100 pounds and the
proposed schedule gives him only one-fourth
of 1t. this will reduce his profits by 45 cents
per 100 pounds, and If such profits are only
3sl5 cents per 100 now, that will leave him
carrying on the business at considerable
net loss.
Nothing but Christian fortitude can ac-
count for Mr.. Havemeyer's satisfaction; and
one cannot speak too highly of the philan-
trophy which lobbied so successfully in IA
vor of schedule, the effect of which is to
give the American people their sugar at so
much less than it actually cost him.
Mr.. Havemeyer's statement that the labor
cost of refining in Europe is about one-eighth
cent per pound less than here obviously needs
explanation: since from the census reports of
the more extensively working refineries
alone it appears that the total labor cost of
refining in this country is well below one
eighth cent per pound.
And when Mr.. Havemeyer proves to his
own satisfaction that the valuation of raw
sugar sufficient TO make pound of the re-
fined. sugar is equal TO the valuation OF
pound of refined sugar and therefore that
there is no protection in the 40 per cent.
item. he proves too much. For he will ad-
nit that his prices are more than a cent a
pound higher in the latter case. If he tells
the truth therefore he proves that he is
nuisance on the face of the earth, bribing
legislation and bulldozing the government to
pay him an extra bonus of GO cents per 100
pounds. or seven times the total labor cost of
refining for putting sugar through process
which foreigners will do for nothing.
OF course, however. there are people who
may not believe Mr.. Havemeyer.