The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-12-31


place while the sugar was being ship
ped
Mr.. James ID. Hill, of New Orleans,
maze an argument on behalf of COM
mittee of the American Cane Growing
Association. He asked that the rate
of duty on sugar under the act of 1883
be reimpoSed. Nothing less than that,
he said, would be satisfactory
Mr.. Payne inquired as to what the
revenue would be IL the duty OF 1888
was restored.
Mr.. Hill calculated that the revenue
would be from 20 to so million dollars.
He added that he had presented the
case on the part of the home producers
of sugar. whose hope it was. under the
tariff which they expected. there would
growing interests of this country as
would supply all its consumption.
a SCHEDULE PROPOSED.
He asked first-that specific duties, de-
pendent upon both polariscopic and COL
or standard should be imposed in lieu
of ad valorem.
Second. That, commencing with s1.40
for sugar testing 10 and under, 1G Dutch
standard, and proceeding by .o4 for each
degree above Is, the duties on sugars
above 16 Dutch standard be propor-
tionately increased
Third. That countervailing duties Off
setting export bounties be imposed.
Fourth. y proportionate duty he i'm
posed on molaSSes
Fifth. That the new law should have
force from the passage of the act. and
oiNln. mat In the event of the adop-
lloh or reciprocity treaties and con-
ventions 1t shall be without injury to
the domestic sugar industry and on lines
which fully recognize the over-shadow-
ing Importance of developing sugar pro-
duction in the United States. and bv
such methods as insure IL protection
cqulNaient to what we have hercinbe-
fore suggested
MIR. ]. Hale Sypher, formerly OF Lou
islana, presented some additional facts
IN regard TO the cane sugar industry or
LOUISIANA, and gave it as n result of
ms experience and inquiries that tho
sost 10 the sugar trust of refining sugar
uia not exceed one-quarter Of n cent n
pound, While III Louisiana the cost wa.
about 3-S cent. This, he added did
not include waste. "'u
MI humphreys, of New York. mndc
Suiile "dditional remarks and was in
iuireu oi as 10 the cost of refining su
Ear. II" disclaimed any personal nc
Huail.ance with that matter. but csti-
liiated mat with n high grade of row.
sugar, the cost would not be far from
~ stated by Mr.. Syphcr. Ia cent n
pound but with low grade of ~ ~.
sugar the cost would probably be half
cent n pound, or as the relinp,S osSa,,ad
6-S cent per pound. ''ei 'e''
VII. McM!!lln inquired as tn wba,hor
,i, uS", reHhing IN this country was not in
IJ,p,nhr", tne sugar trust. Mr.
',nuilphreNS showed manifest disjn
c!ihatlon 10 go into the matter. savine,
.hat members of the committee kna,r
as as iiluch about 1t as he did Practiralr
however, he sad. the sugar trust was
d c0Hip!nation of all the refineries which
ton. 80 VI h"ii'~d- =
But' he added, since then three or.
iour or hve outside reinerios bovn
grown up. and if you let the matter niona
believe that within the next two ar
three years there will no boif = 1,',.,,
more establishments"
IS. Thurber of New York presi-
,ieht OF the American Grocer Publishinr
company, spoke in behalf of tho COW
sumers, distributors and refners nf
Susar oil the United States He said
there was no Just reason why Americo,, y,
sugar interests. whether cnramca 80 ~, =,
production. refining or dis;ribut,on
shouiu not be entitled TO the Same do
gree or protection as other countries
NO other product reaches the consumer
III ms country with the same small
margin of profit TO manufactured ana
distributor. AS distributor of eu~a,.
Tor many years he had done so M ines
tnan the cost of the services rendered.
w hen the organizations of tho irdnetr,.
aimed TO give distributors a com,nissjoi,
Ni't' aitHl ~ lle COST OF the services
rendered. n cry of combination and
monopoly was set up. which was coIcu-
iated TO coerce legislators and courts
mo faNoring chaos instead of iusticn
~ no time has there been a monopoIy
ana Today there are four competing rn
ened -''' ''' ga /
To-day the consumers of France and
germany. the largest producers of
sugar IN the world. pay about 30 rer
cent more than those Of the Irniiod
states, but those countries protect their
sugar industries with n bounty, which
enables them To dump their surplus on
foreign markets ut abnormaliy low
prices, which have broken down tho re-.
iihlng industry in England pt but for
our barrier of protective .Irs. they
would DO the same for both our pro-
dncing and refining industries
HISTORY OF THE TRUST.
The American Sugar Refining Cam
pahy. or the so-ca!led Sugar Trust. was
organized in 1887 Before the consnlida
tlon many reiiner.es were driven into
bankruptcy or ont of business. but since
'hat time, owing TO the organization.
consumers, distributors ana rcnuari
"i Special interests are now seeking io
chihSe the basis of duty and minimize
ne prlnciplc of protection. but. divestcl
"l al Illusions. the question presented
,S Whether the work of refining should
ne done abroad or in the I1nitcd STATES
Specifc duties In many lines have nm
honest basis for preference hut in e,,rl