The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-05-26

equivalents more uniform. We believe thai
the imposition of the high specific rates upon
low-grade sugar testing 81 deg. or below
would have the effect OF excluding them from
the markets OF the United States. The total
amount OF these low grades produced is, as
have already stated, I'm important as COM
pared with the total sugar crop, but their con-
tinued impoItation into the United states Is
very important when viewed from the stand
point of our trade and commerce with other
countries.
To exclude from the American market all
the low-grade cane sugars from the nearby
countries and sugars of all grades from dis
tant countries would confine American pur-
chasers to beet sugar and to centrifugais from
points nearest the United States, and send oil
other sugars to free markets like CanaOa an q
England. This policy would undoubtedly IN
crease the price of the sugars from nearby
countries and necessarily add to the cost OF
sugar to consumers in the United states.
These are the reasons VIII CHI led your commit /
tee to suggest an ad valore N raj OF 70 per ceH
on all sugars testing not above 81 degrees.
But this rate can only apply to a very small
portion OF the sugars of the world, as from 0 D.
vlous causes the propOrtiolate amount OF sucn
sugars is constantly decreasing.
On the same sugars testing 81 degrees, very
much the larger portions. SIS l have alre adv
stated. being centrifugals testing about 30
degrees, we were confronted with the TACT mat
these rates would discriminate in favor OF the
sugars OF certain localities and values, against
those of others. The committee, after iuli
consideration, reached the Inclusion tnat
the essential elements of certainty OF reve-
nue. and an adjustment of rates that would
lessen determinations could best be secured
by the adoption OF compound rates. Ine
committee, therefore, adopted the suggestion
which is containedin the bill we have report
ed 10 the Senate of imposing inc duty;
which is equivalent TO about Az per cent az
yalOrem, with an additional duty OF 30 per
cent ad valorem on all sugars from 81 to 100
degrees, with 13-100 OF a cent per pound addi-
tional on all sugars above No. l6 Dutch stand
ard in color and in refined sugars.
T. which
imported into the United States has mere tofore
been imported in raw condition and mas
been refined here and it is, therefore, OF I'M
portance that We should consider carefully
the effect which the schedule proposed by the
Senate Committee would have upon me ref1n-
ing industry. l assume that 1t Will be ad-
mitted il all quarters that this industry is en-
titled 10 fair treatment. The TACT that the
business as conducted to-day is in compare
lively few hands and that a large portion OF
it is carried on by one company, while 1t fur-
nishes reason Tor unusual care in the adj
justment of the rates in order that no unoue
OF unfair advantage shall be given 10 sugar
refiners, should not be allowed to furnish
pretext on the preparation of tariff bill con-
structed upon protective lines for the destruc-
ton of q great industry. In other words IL Is
important from every economic stand
point that we make 1t possible that the
refining of sugar can be successfully carrie
on here and that the business should nos be
turned over by legislative determinations to
German refners.
that o protection is given the refining inter
ests by the proposed schedule beyond that
which is adequate for the continued existence
of the business in the United States. For TINS
purpose have prepared series of statements
which submit for Your consideration, show
Ing the actual difference between the rates
imposed by the schedule upon raw sugars OF
different grades and refined.
The first OF these tables TO which will call
your attention shows the rates imposed upon
each grade OF sugar testing above 81 degrees
~ h. ~ Cax,a H.. -
further the actual differen tial on each grade
in both the House and Senate bills. This
table shows that the diffarential between
raw ana refined sugars by the Senate pro-
100 pounds, while the differenrial in the
House bill varies from 12.2O TO 1875 cents
per 100 pounds. 1t will be seen from an
examination OF this table that the dlfferential
between graduated sugar and SO degree CEN
trifugals-this being by lar the most impor-
tant class OF raw sugars and in amount two
thirds of the total imports OF raw sugar-is
9.S7 cents per hundred pounds; on "a degree
cetrifugals the differentiai is 1913 cents; on
80 degree Muscavadoes the differential is ID q.
In order 10 show that the committees propo-
sition does not give undue advantage to
beet sugars as compared with cane sugars, the
following statement has been prepared by me
to show tie differential between raw and re-
fined beet sugar in comparison with the differ
entail of the same sugars based on the rates
imposed by existing laws.
Diferentiai rates on raw beet sugar. 8S de-
gree 6udtysls, ana on GeTIuhu graduated.
Refined. Raw Differentiai
Senate bill ..l 1876. SO 1875 IA 7s7
Aldrich then submitted statements
showing the differentials under varying
values of sugar, and resumed:
Under the existing law German refined re-
ceiyes .3S OF cent per pound export bounty.
The countervallIDg duty here is bur lilo OF a
cent per pound. The German refIer, there
fore, receives d net bounty of % OF a cent per
pound. This enables HIM to sci his product
at a less price than the American re finer has
kind of competition w hich is driving The cane
sugar to the wall.
He then replied a length to statement
by Hon. William L. Wilson, in which
the latter estimated the rates imposed BY
the Senate committees report Continu-
ing, Aldrich said:
In the ia bles have submitted no allusion
is made to the bounty provisions contained in
both the Senate and House proposals The
adoption of these or similar provisions for
countervalling duties seems TO be O necessity
If we are to develop the beet-sugan industry
in the United States. Otherwise it will be
possible for any foreign country, by extension
OF its bountles, to neutralize entirely tie effect
OF our protective dudes.
In considering the important question
whether the differenial proposed by either
the House or the Senate bill is greater than it
should be, we are bound in fairness to take
into consideration existing conditions aud the
changes which have taken place since the
enactment of the act of 1894. When that act
was under discussion in the Senate The err
ence of German granulaied and raw bets, 80
per cent analysis, was 81 of cent per pound.
In March the difference was 80 OF a cent
per pound. The importations OF refined sug ars
Into the United States amounted in 1891 to
1000, 900 pounds and in 1892 to ID ,OOO, 600
to 1877 100000 pounds while The impor a.
lions in the single month of April 1897,
amounted to near.y 81. 100000 pounds. Ger
man refiners have driven the sugar-refining
industry of Great Britain almost entirely out
of existence. They are, as l have already
stated, invading every sugar market OF the
world with their product. Most Of the German
granulated imported is the result of con-
tinuous process of refining. For months raw
beet sugar and German graduated have sold
on absolute parity of value, taking into ac-
count only the percentages of pure sugar con-
tanned in it. III We assume the cost of re-
filming sugar in the United States to be
approx ately n cent per pound, and if Ger
man refined can be sold without loss on the
same basis with German raws, 1T must be evil
dent that the differen tails suggested in the
Senate proposition are not only not excessive
but they are quite likely in the near future to
prove inadequate to secure the continuance of
the business If sugar refining in the United
States. Ii the importations OF German grHnu-
lated should increase at the same ratio that
they have since the act of 1894 was adopted,
the Germans will certainly secure at early
day large part of the American MARKET The
protection afforded by the differentials pro.
posed by the Senate committees Is, believe,
not only less by percentage but less with
reference to the actual requirements of the
industry than that afforded by rates imposed
upon any other important product by the
terms of the bill.
Pettigrew gave notice of an amendment
to the tariff bill providing for the abroga-
ton OF the Hawaiian reciprocity treaty, as
follows:
"That the treaty concluded on January