The Portland daily press., 1896-12-31

the organization Of the industry CON
sumers, the distributors and renners
have been benefited. Representatives OF
special interests are seeking to oLa 4ge ge
the basis of duty and minimize Gbs
principle of protection. Divested OF all
illusions, the question presented Is
whether the work of refining should ie
done abroad or in the United States.
Specific duties in many lines have an
honest basis for preference. In suen
commodities as sugar, in wh1ch pouna
values may vary as much as leo per cen0'
the principle is manifestly inoongruous
and impraoticable. Raw sugar worth
two cents q pound, should not pay as
much per pound as refined worth four
cents a pound. While schedule based
on graduated sacoharine strength. as de-
tined by the polarisoope, might approx
mate Justice, it would not do so tn the
extent which would justify disturbance
of the present basis TO which trade mas
already adjusted itself.
I One feature, be said, should not Do
lost sight of-any differential imposed
upon product of any country granting
bounty should only apply to the rennea
product and not to the raw material fe-
quired by our refneries.
In reply to Mr.. MoMillin. Mr.. Thur-
ber said the distribution of sugar by
wholesale Is now practically on COM
mission basis. Sugars are sold With the
understanding that certain commits
sion (about 3-16) is paid to wholesaler
as his profit. While the American re-
inina company will sell sugar to any one
at the list price, he cannot get the bene-
fit of that BIG cent commission unless
he is bound by that agreement. Mr..
Thurber said sugar refining company re-
quires that sugar shall not be sold at
Hhon ho nnfQ0t1rprSG 1iat nr1CA.
payment of the oomissiOn Is made in
form of rebate when the sale is made;
dealers in those goods have to make
statement before they can get this re-
bate, that they have not violated their
undertaking not to soil below the list
price.
Mr.. McMillin-'sOo refiners who buy
raw sugar coming from bounty paying
countries get the benefit of bounty paid
on that raw sugarT'
Mr.. Thur ber-"So understand.
He said in answer to another question
that fourth of cent pound differ
ential duty, instead of tenth of a cent
would approximate what ia right
". ]. MoCahan, president of the Nc
Cahan Sugar refining company of Phlla-
delphia, said we had now two years and
four months Of the present tariff. with
a protection of one-eighth of cent per
pound or about per cent, while beet
growing countries pay bounty of about
S-8 of cent, giving foreign ref1ners OF
bounty paying countries about quarter
of cent ADVANTAGE in odf market. This
resulted In 1896 in q decrease OF about
/ 10 per cent In imports of refined. against
100 per cent increased importations OF
raw. Our refneries have been runni g
less than go per cent OF their capacity.
He favored advalorem duty on sugar and
advocated placing mnlasses on the Tree
list. 1t being by product of sugar.
Mr.. MoCahan said he did not know OF
any agreement between the independent
refners In the east and west and south
not to abate prices of sugar in the mar
ket. The proposition, he said, OF the
sugar consumed In the United States
| that is produced by the American Sugar
| Refining Company is about 10 or rs per
| oent. He said the export bounty paid by
Germany is paid both on raw and re-
Henry I. Oxnard OF Grand Island,
Neb., president of the Beet Sugar Asso-
citation of the United States, spoke or be-
half Of thst Industry. The present duty.
he said, was not sufficient to protect the
| industry and enoourase the investment
Of additional capital. The beet sugar in.
| dustry could bs developed in 20 states. II
| the Mckinley law had lasted Ii years,
factories would have been started in all
these states, and United States would
produce all the sugar needed for home
| consumption.
The question was asked If we could dc
this He contended that we couM.
We had the climate and soil necessary,
and the seven factories now running
wero producing rs, U00,0 900 pounds OF
sugar annually. We were about the only
civilized country not producing its OWE
sugar. In cane and beet sugar we were
now producing about one-seventh Of the
amount consumed at home. lie quoted
| from consular reports to show what We
were paying abroad for sugar, and said
| the sugar producers of the United States
needed fair protection to encourage them
TO meet the conditions abroad-cheap
labor and raw materials, bountfes, etc.
Germany was simply forcing the Unit
ed States to defend the home industry
and within the last three months had
sent representatives to visit every beel
sugar factory in this country. He re-
ferred to the Hawaiian treaty as failure
! and one-sided agreement which depriveS
us Of much revenue. 1t was fraud upon
| its face, and presants conditions that de-
Inand its cancellation. 1t involved
sugar, rice and other American products
which were struggling for existence
Producers wers not here to make or sug
gest schedule for the American Refin
ing Company, nor were they here to an
taqonize it. The company did not en-
ploy an army of laborers. The proteotion
which would satisfy 1t would not be re-
quisite for our producers. The produ'
GERS required duty high enough to place
them on plane with foreign competit-
ion. Owing to the financial condition,
1t might not be wise to renew the law OF
1890. The suggestion of 1888 seem ed
feasible. He favored duty and a bounty
on sugar. Such schedule, he said. prop.
erly adjusted, could be made as nearly
fair to all Interests as possible and
ieopardize none. 1t oould be made tc
yield moro revenue, out of which the
bounty could be paid, while it would
offer sufficient protection and adequate
encouragement to develop domestic In
| dustry.
Herbert Myriok of New York, ad
dressed the committee on the beet sugar
/ interest. He said it required every