The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-12-31
Producers, Refipcrs and Importers
Heard at Length by the Ways
and Means Committee.
WIDE DIVERGENCE OF VIEWS
PLEA FOR BEET GROWERS MADE By
MEssRs. OXNARD AND MYRICk.
Reciprocity Not Favored by the For
mer-Argumen ents of Southern Cane
Growers and others.

| WASHINGTON, Dec 30.-The sugar
schedule was the subject of the hearings
before the ways and means committee 10
day, and il was the nest Interesting as
well as the most important schedule so far
considered. The conflicting interests Of the
producers, refners and importers were
brought out in sharp contrast. The pro-
ducers wanted higher duties all along the
line and the refiners pressed for high
duties on refined and not so high On raw
sugars. The latter were especially anxious
that in imposing countervailing duties
against export t-bounty countries the addi-
tional duty should be levied only against
the refined article The importers. the cane
growers, the refiners and the beet growers
were each given innings by the committee.
| John Farr of New York, opened the
gument for the importers Their recon-
mendatons, as presented by Mr.. Farr.
We're: First, on all sugars testing 70 degrees
| or less a duty of l cent a pound adding
| .03c per degree to 100 degrees; second, an
additional duty of about 14c dfferential on
| all sugars above 10 Dutch standard in color,
| to prevent refiners from entering refined
sugars at the same duty raw sugars of
the same test; third, additional discrim-
| mating duty on all sugars from bounty
| paying countries, with authority TO the
| President to raise or lower duties on goods
| from these countries as the bounties were
| raised or lowered This scheme, the i'm
| porters estimated, would yield the govern
ment revenue of s50.000.000 per year, the
amount of sugar paying duty being about
| 100000 tons, the average poariscope test
being 90 degrees. In reply to questions
from Chairman Dingley, Mr.. Farr declared
| there no undervaluation Of sugars i'm
| ported now, but owing to the strict inter-
probation of the law by the customs Off
cials the tendency was to pay more duty
| than the law called for.
Mr.. Farr was questioned by Mr. Payne,
of New York, on the effects of the opera
tons of the American Sugar Refining Com
serted that only in occasional bargains
| could the American Refining Company buy
| fluence had been to reduce the price of
| sugar throughout the world Under the
| present differential rate of three-tcnths of
Il cent, the importations of the last year
| bad been 65, 600 900 tons larger than ever be-
fore. differentiai of NC pound would
enable the soft white sugars TO compete
| with the centrifugal refined.
| PLEA FOR SPECIFIC DUTIES.
Mr.. Solon Humphreys. of New. York.
chairman of committee appointed by the
sugar trade, explained the difficulties of an
ad valorem tariff on sugar, and made a
| plea for a specific system. The change he
said, was unanimously demanded by the
| trade. Ad valorem valuations were unjust
| and impractical on account of fluctuations
| in prices. The sugar schedule had given
| the Treasury Department more trouble
| than any other feature of the tariff act
| now i'm force. 1t had been estimated by the
| department that it would yield a revenue
| nf IL
enue had been less than $50. 900 600, and un-
| der existing conditions it would not exceed
81. 100000 for the current year Higher
| the result of the schedule asked, Mr.
Humphreys continued. but the advance
would be so small it would not be felt by
| three-fourths of cent at IS degrees would
yield S4S,OOoooO revenue Production or
and no reduction in prices could be expect
ed for several years. Speaking of bounties.
| Mr.. Humphreys declared they We're a dis
| organizing factor in the sugar business of
the world The German government re-
| Gently had raised the bounty to something
over le-fourth of cent pound. which
| enabled Germany to dispose of all her sur
plus product. The system working
ruin TO all the British islands, so that they
| must resort to the same scheme or get out
| of the business. Instead of one-tenth of a
cent on bounty sugar imported into this
country. the additional duty should equal
p. j. Smith, another New York importer.
made brief argument against ad valorem
| duties.
Colonel j. d. HILL of New Orleans. rem
| resenting the Cane Growers Association of
Louisiana, was the first to speak for the
| producer He argued for a restora ation of
| the duty of the act of 1883. He spoke of the
| stimulation produced by the bounty act of
! 1880 with the duty imposed therein on re-
| nned sugar, and frankly said if a similar
| provision could be made in the prospective
| law and its permanence guaranteed til
| sugar producers would prefer 1t. But, all
1 l<Q6
| actment or the provision In the act of 1882
DUTY ASKED BY CANE GROWERS.
In reply to a question by Mr.. Johnson.
| Colonel Hill expressed the opinion that with
the protection asked the cane and beet su-
gar industries of the United States could
| produce enough sugar to supply the con-
sumption of this country. He further de-
clared that he had not the slightest doubt
| if the bounty of 1880 had been continued
during the term of years provided for the
sugar growers would have supplied the con-
sumption by the time the bounty period
| expired. The cane growers asked first
| that specific duties dependent on botb
| polariscopic test and color standard be inn
posed in lieu Of ad valorem duties; second
| that, commencing with lao per cent for
| sugar testing 30 and under 10 Dutch stand
| ard the rate he Droportionately increased:
third, that duties equal to export bounties
! be imposed to offset them; fourth a pro-
| portionate duty on molasses; fifth, that the
| new tariff law have effect from the passage
| of the act; sixth, that reciprocity treaties
| if adopted be without injury to the domestic
| sugar industry lines which recognize
| the overshadowing Importance of develop
| ing sugar production in the United States
| and by such methods as insure a protection
| equivalent to that suggested.
| Senator Perkins. of California presented
| an argument in favor of the imposition of
| a specific tax of 1l2 cents pound on i'm
| ported raw sugar. He showed that the
| consumption OF imported sugar by
| the United States is about l.
| 100000 tons year. all of which, If the
| sugar interest is protected. he said can be
produced in few years within our borders
| He showed that the area capable of pro-
| ducing 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 al
| kali plains of the Pecos river. ia Utah. to
the rich soil of California. He pointed out
the fact that France alone produced sugar
beets enough to manufacture all the sugar
| that import and that Germany is a
| still greater producer of sugar of this char
| acter Austria is also a large producer
| These countries. he said. have protected
their interests so IL has been able TO in
| crease to its present vast dimensions and
are now increasing the bountes and duties
| IN order to protect their respective pro-
| ducers against the competition of other Eu-
| ropean beet sugar countries. The sugar pro-
| ducers of the United States thus are forced
| into competition with the protected sugar
Of Europe and for this protected sugar are