Omaha daily bee., 1896-12-31

But all things considered. they asked for a
re-onactment OF the provisions In the act
OF 1888. lie produced figures to show the
reduction In price OF refined sugar under
the operation OF that act at the time when
tho crops were being marketed to illustrate
the benefits to the country at large from
home competition.
STIMULATES OTHER INDUSTRIES.
Colonel Hill laid special stress on the
dangers arising from the disposition OF all
continental countries producing sugar to give
bounties. He said that no industry offered
so wide and 80 disttibutive results as the
sugar Industry, and he gave many figures
TO show the widespread stimulus 1t gave to
other Industries.
In reply to a question by MFR. Johnson Of
North Dakota. Colonel Hin expressed the
opinion that with the protection asked the
cane and beet sugar industries OF the United
States could produce enough sugar to sup
ply the consumption of this country. He
further declared that he had not the slight
est doubt but that II the bounty OF 1890 had
been continued during the term OF years pro-
vided for, the sugar growers would have sup
piled the consumption by the time the bounty
period expired The cane growers asked:
!. That specific duties dependent on both
poariscope test and color standard be inn
posed In lieu of ad valorem duties.
2 That commencing with l,i0 cents for
cugar testing 75 and under, 1G Dutch stand
ard, the rate be proportionately increased.
3. That duties equal to export bounties
De imposed TO onset them.
4. proportionate duty on molasses.
5. That the new law have effect from the
passage of the act
6. That reciprocity treaties, II adopted be
without injury to the domestic sugar in
dustry on lines which recognize the over
shadowng Importance of developing sugar
production in the United States, and by such
methods as insure a protection equivalent to
that suggested.
j. II. Sypher of this city was called by
M linz nla a,,I ID t,g. .t.,
Ion that the cost OF refining by the Sugar
trust was not to exceed one-fourth of /
cent, while the cost Of refining in Louisiana
would, perhaps, reach three-eighths of l
cent.
Mr.. Humphreys was recalled and asked the
cost OF refining sugar. but he said he did not
care to set his opinion against actual refners.
He thought that, however, In a general
way the cost of refining sugar. testing 90
degrees, was about as stated by Mr.. Sypher,
but sugars of lower grades with more inn
purities would, of course be much more for
instance. II would cost one-half of ! cent to
refine sugar OF S5 degrees.
In reply to a question by Mr.. McMilln,
Mr. Humphreys said that Sugar trust was
a combination of the sugar renncriGs exist
Ing at the time 0SSO 1t was organized; there
were several refneries outside the trust and
he had read OF others in contemplation. which
led him to believe that the number would be
Increased in the next few years.
HENRY T. oXNARD'S VIEWS
Mr. Henry T. Oxnard of Grand Island, Neb,
president of the American Beet Sugar so
clety, In behalf of the beet sugar industry
charged that the present tariff not only
failed to give protection to the sugar rails
ers, but discouraged the investment OF addi-
tional capital. 1t had been predicted that
under the Mckinley law the beet sugar
Industry would grow rapidly and three re
fineries had been built during the life
OF that law, but since then fear OF
had
schedule on sugar which had been in force
since 1850, except that of the Wilson law,
would permit the spread Of beet sugar
growing. Beet sugar could be produced In
twenty states and under a proper tarifl
the United States could in good years raise
the sugar necessary for consumption. The
beet industry protested against rates which
favor the single state of Louisiana. No
party except that which framed the Wilson
bill had procured any sugar rates lower
than Ia to 3A cents per pound. Mr.. Ok
nard delivered an argument In favor OF
a bounty and proceeded to quote depart
metal reports and other authorities to show
that this country had sufficient climate and
capital requisite to the production of all
its own sugar. Every other nation, even
Sweden. which could supply itsc9 with
sugar, had taken every measure to do so. |
REASONS FOR A BOUNTY.
Even little Bulgaria had liberal duties and |
boun:ies enforced for this purpose. Cost of |
labor. uncertainty as to legislation export |
bounties in othzr countries and decline In |
prices were all operating to keep capital ou,
OF investment In beet sugar Germany now |
pays 27.321s and 3S $40 cents per 100 pounds |
export bounties. according the quality of the |
sugar, and could afford to sell sugar In New |
York at 1312 cents per 100 pounds less than |
American producers, and occasionally sci, |
surplus products below the costs. Give Amer
leans a reasonable bounty, guaranteed tc
continue for a reasonable time and they |
would work wonders. The American was |
now obliged to compste with African cheap |
labor. as Egypt in the last fiscal year had |
sent 50 .257 900 worth OF sugar to the United |
States In British bottoms which carried no |
return cargo. With war in Cuba and the |
Philippines cutting Off supplies from those |
Islands. Germany was endeavorlng to cap
ture the American market. For reasons sup |
possdly commercial, congress had in 1876 |
legislated for free entry OF sugar from Ha-
wall. This treaty had never met favor with |
the people, had cost SiS 900 and had not |
greatly increased our exports to that coun-
try. The estimated duties remitted by the |
United States on Hawaiian sugar are $16,-
100000 He thought 1t unjust to encourage
these importations at the expense of revenue
and our home producers He urged the alb
rogation of the agreement.
Speaking Of conflicting interests involved |
In giving adequate protection to the sugar
growers, he pointed to the efforts of sugar |
refners who bought and refined the foreign |
product, ana 10 the mlllers oil Hour and others
who desired 10 use sugar in reciprocity agree
ments. 70 obtain concessions for themselves,
The refners wanted the lowest possible duty
on raw and the highest on refined While,
owing to the condition OF the treasury, 1t
might not be feasible TO re-cnact the bounty
scheme of 1890, he thought the dual system
proposed by the senate amendments 10 the
Mills bill in 1885, which imposed q duty and
also gave bounty. was now entirely prac-
ticable
ADVOCATES DUTY AND BOUNTY.
Mr. OXnard took strong grounds aeains,
any reciprocity He thought a dual policy
(both duty and bounty would be fair to all
interests and jeopardze none. Such a policy.
he said, would increase the revenue, out of
which the bounty could be paid, and would
encourage the sugar industry. The schedule
he proposed was a duty of cent per pound
on all sugars testing 75 degrees or less;
cents per 100 pounds additional for each de
greo bstween 10 and 96 degrees, and cents
per 100 pounds for every additional degree
between 96 and 100. with one-fourth OF / per
cent dihferential on sugars above l6 Dutch |
standard. He asked for the Mckinley duty
on molasses and contravailing duties against
bounty paying countries on both raw and re-
fined sugars The bounty he proposed was
three four.hs OF | per cent per pound, one
fourth to go off at the end OF each four years.