The San Francisco call., 1896-12-31

Association of the United States spoke in
behalf of that industry. He favored an
additional duty on sugars above No. Is
duties standard IN color, to prevent the
foreign retiners from entering their soft,
refined sugars here az the same rate of
duty as raw sugars of the same test.
1t was also recommended that an addi-
.tional discriminating duty be placed on
all sugars coming from bounty paying
countries, with authority to the executive
to reduce or increase this additional duty
in such proportion as the bounty-paying
countries may from time to time raise or
lower their bounties.
1t was estimated that the average polari-
cation of raw sugars imported into this
country is about go degrees. Such sugars
would pay Isl cents per pound, which
would produce an annual revenue on this
article of about $50, 600 600, calculating
upon importations of about l, 500, 900 tons
OF dutiable sugars, which had been the
average the past few years.
The next speakers were Solon
Humphreys and J. Smith of New York
James D. Hill of New Orleans made an
argument in behalf of committee of the
American Cane-growing Association. He
asked that the rate of duty on sugar
under the act of 1883 be reimposed.
Nothing less than that, he said, would be
satisfactory.
J. Hale Sypher, formerly of Louisiana,
presented some additional facts in regard
to the cane-sugar industry of louisiana,
and gave it as the result of his experience
and inquiries that the cost to the sugar
trust OF eining sugar did not exceed one
quarter of cent a pound, while in Louisi.
ana the cost was about three e-eighths of a
cent This, he added, did not include
waste.
Solon Humphreys of New York made
some additional remarks and inquired as
to the cost of refining sugar.
Mr.. McMillin asked whether refining
in this country was not in the hands of the
sugar trust.
Mr.. Humphreys showed a Misunderstanding
clination to go into the matter, saying
that memb bers of the com mittee knew as
much about it as he did.
f. B. Thurber of New York, president
of the American Grocer Publishing Com
pany, spoke in behalf of the consumers,
distributors and refineries of sugar in the
United States. He said the consumers of
France and Germany-the largest pro-
ducers OF sugar in the world-pay about
so per cent more than those of the United
States; but those coun tries protect their
sugar industries with bounty, which
enables them to dump their surplus on
foreign markets at abnormally low prices,
which have broken down the refining in.
dustry in England, and but for our bar
rier OF protective duties they would do the
same tor both our producing and refining
industries. One feature, he said, should
not be lost sight of: Any differential i'm
posed on the product of any country
granting bounty should only apply to
the refined product, and not the raw ma
terial required by our refneries.
Mr.. Thurber said that the distribution
OF sugar by wholesale is now practically
on the commission basis. The sugars are
sold with the understanding that a cer-
tain ommission-about 3-16 of l per
CENTS paid to the wholesaler as his
profit; and while the American Refining
Company will sell sugar to any one at its
list price be cannot get the benefit OF that
three-sixteenths commission unless he is
bound by that agreement, the sugar-re-
dning company requiring that th4 sugar
shall not be sold at less than the manu-
facturers' first price.
The payment of this commission is
made in the form of a rebate when the sale
is made, and those who deal in those
goods have to make a statement before
they can get this rebate that they have
not violated their undertaking not to sell
below the list price. Without this GER
tificate they do not get paid for handling
the goods.
He said, in answer to another question,
that the present duty was not sufficient 10
protect the industry and to encourage the
investment of additional capital. Years
ago it was admitted that this country
could not produce the sugar consumed
here. Conditions, however have changed
The Deet sugar industry could be DEVELOPED
in twenty States, and if the Mckinley law
had lasted for fifteen years, factories would
have been started in all these States, and
the United States would produce all the
sugar needed for home consum ption.
The question was asked if we could do
this. He contended that we could. We
have the climate and soil necessary and
seven factories now running are producing
75,000,0 600 pounds of sugar annually. We
were about the only civilized country not
producing its own sugar. In cane and
beet sugar we are now producing about
one-seventh of the amount consumed at
home. In this connection he quoted from
consular reports to show what we were
paying abroad for sugar, and that we had
sufficient territory to produce our own
sugar if the industry was sufficiently pro-
tected. The sugar-producers of the United
States only needed fair protection to en- :
courage them TO meet these conditions
abroad--cheap labor and raw materials,
bounties, etc. Germany was simply fore
ing the United States to defend home
industry, and within the last six months
had sent a representative to every beet
sugar factory in this country.
He referred to the Hawaiian treaty as a
failure and a one-sided agreement which
deprived US of much revenue. 1t was a
fraud upon its face and present conditions
demanded its cancellation. 1t involved
sugar. rice and other American products
which were struggling for existence.
The producers were not here to make OF
suggest a schedule for the American Re-