The evening tribune. (Pawtucket, R.I.) 189?-190?, 1896-12-31
House Committee Listens TO
Many Arguments.
Most Interesting Day So Far of
Tariff Discussion.
Interests Of Refiners and Importers Of Sugar
Brought out In Sharp Contrast.


ing so far held. The sugar schedule
was under consideration, and the diverse
and conflicting interests of producers.
| refiners and importers We're brought out
| N sharp contrast.
Representatives of producers wanted
| higher duties all along the line. and the
| refiners pressed for high duties on re-
| fined and not so high on raw sugars.
| The latter were especially anxious that
In imposing countervailing duties
| against export bounty countries the
additional duty should be levied only
| against the refined article. The i'm
| porters. the cane growers, the refiners
| and the beet growers were each given
| innings by the committee.
John Farr of New York, Solon
| Humphreys of New York and Il. j.
| Smith of New York represented the
| importers; Colonel j. ID. Hill Of New
| Orleans represented the cane sugar
! growers, w. J. McCann OF Philadelphia
| the refiners, and Henry 7. Oxnard Of
| Grand Island, Neb., and Herbert
| Myrick, the beet sugar interests.
Francis Il. Thurber, a New York mer-
| chant, and j. III. Sypher Of this city.
| Bishop Thomas r. Cutler Of Utah and
| r. M. Allen of Nebraska also made
| arguments, while Senator Perkins Of
California submitted printed brief.
Francis Il. Thurber of New York. In
| an argument for sugar protection from
| the distributors standpoint, said that
no product was soh so extensively in
which there was such a small profit,
| estimated by him at 1s Of cent pound.
| He said that in France and Germany
| the great bounty-paying sugar coun-
| tries, the consumers paid more for their
| sugars than those in the United States.
| The bounties given by France and Ger
many had crushed sugar refining in
| England, and would do so here but for
| our protective barrier.
Does the company require that the
sugar shall not be sold below a certain
| figure?" asked Mr. McMillin.
YES" replied Mr.. Thurber, "the trust
requires that the sugars shall not be
sold below the manufacturers list
| price on the day Of the SALE"
rs the distributor obliged to certify
that he has sold for the list price?"
"He is, or he forfeits his commission" +"
w. ]. McCann Of Philadelphia, one Of
the independent reflners. said the pres
1 ent tariff had resulted in an increased
| importation OF ITO per cent in refined
| sugars, and only 10 per cent In raw
sugars. He said this showed that unless
| additional protection was afforded the
refining of our sugars would all be done
abroad.
The beet sugar industry had the floor
In the afternoon. Henry T. Oxnard Of
Grand Island, Neb, president OF the
American Beet Sugar society, was the
spokesman. He charged that the pres
ent tariff not only failed to give protec
tion to the sugar raisers, but discouraged
the investment Of additional capital
Mr.. oxford delivered an argument in
favor Of a bounty.
1T did not seem to have much effect
In Nebraska" suggested Mr.. Steele Of
| Indiana.
Millin.
We'll, look at California" replied Mr..
Oxnard. 1T had it's effect there"
A moment later Mr. Oxnard spoke Of
the duty of the majority to carry ost
| their platform pledges. While plat
| form pledges have no legal binding force,
they certainly ought to bind the con-
| science Of members Of the majority in
| congress-" said Mr.. Oxnard.
"If they have any" calculated Mr.
| q hearty laugh all around.
Mr.. Oxnard took strong grounds
against any reciprocity. He thought
dual policy (both duty and bounty
would be fair to all interests and jeop-
| ardize none.
do you believe that a bounty would
| be permanent" asked Mr.. Payne.
"You remember in "a you opposed 1t on
| the ground that II could not be made
permanent"
Yes" replied Mr.. Oxnard, II think
1t would be permanent, because / be-
lieve the Republican party will continue
| in power"
"Why?" asked Mr.. Wheeler.
| Because 1t has restored prosperity"
Herbert Myrick, president Of the
| Orange Judd company, spoke in the in
| terests of the farmer. His argument
| was exhaustive and was largely de-
| voted to showing the advantage OF the
| production in this country Of the sugar
| consumer here. 1t was an economic
| crime, he said, to compel American
| farmers to raise staples in competition
with the cheap land and labor countries
| with which to pay for imported sugar,
| besides standing the freight and COM
| mission both ways. The sugar beet In
| dustry, he said, was on the high road to
success under the Mckinley law. Its
repeal had brought II to a standstill
| Thomas r. Cutler OF Utah, a bishop OF
| the Mormon church. read statistics or
imports and exports between the United
States and Hawaii. showing that the
exports for the United States are but
llA per cent Of the imports, and that
1907 900 OF duties are rebated to the
| Hawaiian producers. The sugar i'm
ported from Hawaii would give employ
ment I'm the United States to 2<S, 900 men
continuously throughout the year.
| AS the first maker OF beet sugar ma
cbinery In the United States, he asserted
that the American made machinery
was superior to that Of Germany or
France. While much OF the work In
connection with the raising Of beets was
being done by machinery the wedding
had to be done by hand but the laborers
of California would be glad Of a chance