The Washington times., 1894-07-09

far larger and better situated and more
economically worked. With absolute free
trade in sugar, therefore, our United States
refners would still supply our total consump-
tion, which cheaper sugar would make larger
than 1t is now, and would employ moro
workmen at better wages in every depart
ment of their business. Then, as now, the
only imports OF refined sugar would be In the
case of special grades for confectionery and
drug purposes, broken eargoes, imports in
bond for re-export, etc., etc., the highest
bounty paid by any competing country not
being nearly sufficient to, pay the freight
across the ocean, and no country exporting
refined sugar having anything like the ad-
vantages for its raw sugar supply possessed
by our refners.
Were the question one of an ideal Dill pro-
viding tariff for revenue, there might be
something urged in favor of moderate duty
on sugar, though the fact that it is the only
article of universal consumption that is used
by all, rich and poor, young and old. most
nearly in proportion TO numbers and not to
wealth, would make it an ideal example OF
the natural injustice OF tariff taxation. In
view of the present bill, however, there Is no
excuse for any duty whatever on sugar. The
exactions upon clothing and other articles OF
general use have been put SO high as, with
the income tax now a settled item OF tho bill,
to produce all the necessary revenue re-
quired It is little less than wanton, there
fore. to add to an already sufficient revenue
an additional exactior in the shape OF tax
upon sugar. Revenue rcformers should
therefore demand, and they have right to
insist that sugar be left on the free list, as 1t
was by the House bill.
1t is. however, possible that revenue duty
on sugar might meet with sufficient favor to
compel tariff reformers to consider the shape
in which 1t will be least oppressive, and in
duce Democrats to consider the basis upon
which, politically. it will be most tolerable.
In this case, referring to one above. 1t is
plain that duty, say, Of Cloths OF a cent per
pound on 100 degrees sugar, with deduction
for sugars Of less than 100 degrees saccharine
strength of 6-1OOOths of cent (or 1-10oth Of
the maximum) for each degree by which they
shall fall below the 100 degrees standard,
would
(a) Not increase In the least the cost Of his
sugar to any consumer in the United States
(b) Would turn into the Treasury from 81, 900, :
900 to se0O0o,o0o per annum which, under the
Mckinley law, is now handed over to the sugar
trust: and
(c) Treat the trust itself with perfect fairness
by giving it strictly compensatory duty-that
is, giving it protection" upon every pound of
its refined sugar precisely equivalent to the ex-
ira cost on account of the tariff, of the raw ma
terials, no matter of what grade from which it
has made its refined.
II we are to have any duty whatever upon
sugar. this is the schedule that tariff reform
ers should fight for. 1t secures government
as nearly as possible under tn circumstances
revenue corresponding with the tax col
lected from our people.
(d) Ii neither favors nor oppressos the re-
fners, but leaves them like other American cit
liens, to earn their own living
(e) And, making no change in the cost Of sugar
to our people. it is politically safe measure.
The Democratic party could Justly claim credit
for having secured for the Treasury from seven
teen to twenty millions per annum of revenue
without single cent additional taxation of our
citizens, and simply by turning into the Treas
ury the golden stream which the Mckinley act
pumped from their pockets into that Of the
trust