The record-union., 1896-12-31
differential duty, instead of one-tenth
cent, would approximate what is

Gahan Sugar Refining Company OF
Pennsylvania. said that we now had two
years and three months of the present
tariff, with protection Of one-eighth
cent per pound, or about per cent,
while beet-growing countries pay
bounty of about three-eigths of cent
bounty, giving the owners of bounty
paying countries about one-quarter of
cent advantage in our country. he
favored an ad valorem duty on sugar,
and advocated placing molasses on the
free list, it being a by-product OF sugar.
The committee here took a recess.
When the committee reassem bled
Henry 7. Oxnard of Grand Island, Neb.,
President of the Beet-Sugar Association
of the United States, spoke in behalf OF
that industry. The present duty, he
said, was not sufficient to protect the
industry and to encourage the IN
vestment of additional capital. Years
ago it was admitted that this country
could not produce the sugar consumed
here. Conditions, however, had chang
ed. The beet-sugar industry could be
developed in twenty States, and If the
Mckinley law had lasted for fifteen
years factories would have been started
ir all these States, and the United
States would produce all the sugar
needed for home consumption.
The question was asked if We could
dc this. He contended that we could.
We have the climate and soil neceS-
Sary, and seven factories now running
We're producing 75,O00000 pounds of
sugar annually. In cane and beet
sugar We We're now producing about
oEe-Sevennth of the amount consumed
at home. In this connection he quoted
from consular reports to show what We
We're paying abroad for sugar and that
We had sufficient territory to produce
our own sugar if the industry was suffl-
GENTLY protected. The sugar producers
of the United States only needed fair
protection to encourage them to meet
the conditions abroad-cheap labor and
law materials, bounties, etc. Germany
was simply forcing the United States
to defend hon2e industry, and within
the last six months had sent a repre-
sentative to every beet-sugar factory
in this country.
He referred to the Hawaiian treaty
as a failure and a one-sided agree
ment, which deprived us of much rev.
enue. 1t was a fraud upon it's face, and
present conditions demanded its cam
collation.. 1t involved sugar, rice and
other American products which We're
struggling for existence. The producers
We're not here to make or suggest a
schedule for the American Refining
Company. nor were they here to antag-
onize It, The company did not employ
of 10 nd ha
which would satisfy it would not be
requisite for our producers.
The producers required a duty high
enough to pla-e them ON a plane with
foreign competition. Owing to the
financial condition, it might not be wise
to renew the law of 1890, but the sug
gestion of 1888 seemed feasible. He
favored duty and bounty on sugar.
Such a schedule properly adjusted could
be made as nearly fair to all interests
as possible, jeopardizing none. 1t could
f, be made to yield more revenue out OF
which the bounty could be paid, while
it would offer sufficient protection and
adequate encourag cement to develop the
domestic industry. He would give all
sugars of % test and under l cent per
pound, with 3-100 cents additional for
each degree or fraction thereof above
I5 and below 96 test by polariscope:
400 cent for each degree and fraction
| thereof above 90 test
| The Mckinley rate on molasses should
prevail. On all sugars above 16 Dutch
standard in color and testing over SO,
make a differential rate of one-quarter
of cent, instead of one-eighth of a
cent per pound, with a counter duty to
meet any foreign import duty, the same
| to be tentative, and to go off when
| foreign export bOunties are repealed.
| Then, to further protect, and especially
| to encourage the protection of domestic
sugar, to attract to that industry addi-
tional capital, he would from the duty
or sugar pay our domestic producers
! three-quarters of a cent per pound on
all sugars testing not less than 80 de-
grees produced from beets. cane or
I sorghum grown in the United States.
( If thought desirable, quarter cent
Of the bounty could go off at the ex-
piration of every four years making
il One-half cent after four years, and
+ Cne-fourth cent after eight years, the
entire bounty to cease in twelve years,
/ which he claimed was the unexpired
the Government towards her home su-
! gar producers in the Mckinley tariff
of 1890
| To this schedule he would add pro-
vision that sugars from nations impos-
! ing unreasonable restrictions or ex-
actions, and refusing to enter into re-
| ciprOcal agreements for a free and fair
exchange of products, for duties of
from 80 to 30 per cent. above the stand
/ ard specifics; or instead of that ap-
/ ply 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 return on the
! basis of our imports Of dutiable sugar
under 16 Dutch standard for the year
/ 1896 about $50, 900 600. This schedule
would give only fair protection and suf-
/ ficlent encouragement for an increase
! Of domestic sugar. 1t would not ma
: terially increase the price of sugar. and
/ it would allow it to play its part in
J the policy of reciprocity. We would
/ get at least SO 900, 600 more of revenue
| from sugars and would be aiding the
| domestic product at a critical time.
Thomas r. Cutter of Utah spoke of
| the detrimental effects OF the Hawaiian
treaty, resulting, he said in this coun-
! try paying rebates to the contract labor
of that country. If we made our own
/ sugar we would give employment to
| some 90, 900 men annually, and retain
| here about S125.00o,00o per annum.
/ Utah, he said. felt 10 a 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