The San Francisco call., 1896-12-31

producers p of cent per pound on all
sugars testing not less than 80 degrees
produced from beets, cane or sorghum
grown in the United States. If thought
desirable "a cent of the bounty could go
off at the expiration of every four years,
making it Is cent after four years, the en-
tire bounty to cease in twelve years.
which he claimed was the unexpired bal
ance of the obligation incurred by the
Government toward her home-sugar pro-
ducers in the Mckinley tariff of 1890.
To this schedule he would add pro-
vision with regard to sugars from nations
imposing unreasonable restrictions or ex-
actions and refusing TO enter into reclpro-
cal agreement for free and fair exchange
of products. for duties of from 30 to 5O
per cent above the standard specifics; or,
instead of that, apply to such nations the
provisions of the so-called Kerr bill,
minus the tea and coffee clause, or the
Hopkins bill. Such a schedule would re-
turn on the basis of our imports OF duti-
able sugars under 16 Dutch standard
for the year 1886 about $69. .000, 600. This
schedule would give only fair protection
and sufficient encouragement for an in
crease Of domestic sugar. 1t would not
materially increase the price of sugar and
it would allow it to play its part in the
policy of reciprocity. We would get at
least $4,000, 900 more of revenue from
sugars and would be aiding the domestic
product at a critical time.
Thomas K. Cutter of Utah spoke of the
detrimental effects of the Hawaiian
treaty, resulting, he said, in this country
paying rebates to the contract labor of
that country. If we made our own sugar
we would give employment to some
$50 900 men annually and retain here
about $125, ZOO, ,000 per annum. Utah, he
said, felt to certain extent the hand OF
the sugar trust. As soon as the Utah
producers went into their own market the
San Francisco sugar trust reduced prices.
In this matter the home producers had to
contend with the free Hawaiian product.
r. NJ. Allen of Nebraska asked for a
schedule which would encourage our
farmers and not give foreigners a mon
opoy of our marKet. The farmers of Ne
braska would be materially assisted if
beet-growing could be made profitable and
they were ready and anxious to enter into
this industry.
Among the written arguments presented
to the Committee on Ways and Means to-
day was one by Senator George C. Perkins
of California in favor of the imposition of
a specific tax of IL cents per pound on
imported raw sugars. He showed that
the consumption of imported sugar by the
United States is about 100000 tons a
year, all of which can, if the sugar interest
is protected, be produced in few years
within our borders. He showed that the
area capable of producing beet sugar was
sufficient to more than supply the demand
OF the United States, and that sugar beets
can be raised on soil ranging in character
from the aIkali plains of the Pecos River
in Utah to the rich soil of California. He
pointed out the fact that France alone
produced sugar beets enough to manu-
facture all the sugar that we import and
that Germany is a still greater producer
of sugar of this character.
Austria is q large producer. But these
countries have protected this interest so
that it has been enabled 10 increase TO it's
present vast dimensions, and now these
same countries are increasing the bounties
and duties in order to protect their re-
spective producers against the com petition
of other European beet-sugar countries.
The sugar producers of the United States
are thus forced into ompetition with the
protected sugar of Europe and for this
protected sugar are paying out nearly
$100, 600, coo per year. This sum. he argued,
should be retained in the United States
and paid out to our own laborers, farmers
and mechanics.
n nd mill