The San Francisco call., 1897-07-30
Pointed Questions That
Are Asked by the
People.
Were the Tariff Bill ConfereeS
Bunkoed by the
TruSt2
By Taking Advantage of the Wilson
Law the Combine Clears
100000.


has the sugar trust stock advanced so
enormously during the past fortnight,
and especially since the action OF the tariff
conferees on this subject became known
Does the tariff bill give to the sugar
trust any undue advantages, and if not is
there any other cause for the advance in
the stock of the trust?
These are inquiries which every citizen
is making. and properly. They are peril
nent to the occasion. 1t is right that he
should make them and it is right they
should be answered and answered frankly.
That sugar trust stock has advanced as 1t
became apparent that the tariff bill was
approaching completion is undeniable.
That it did advance with leaps and bounds
when the action of the conferees became
known is equally true.
Now what is the cause2 Does the bill
give the trust any secret and mysterious
advantage Of which the public does not
know in detail2 Are Chairman Dingley,
Representative Payne, Senator Allison
and others mistaken when they say that
it does not? The people will not believe
that these men, i'll whose long pubic ca
reer there has been no suspicion or dls-
honesty, are villfully and knowingly
miss tating the facts or making assertions
that are not based upon facts, or at least
what they believe TO be facts.
These men assert that the tariff rates OF
the bill give the refners no more protec-
ton than the actual cost of refining, viz,
one-eighth OF a cent per pound. Nobody
who knows the men making this asser-
ton will believe they are stating other
than what they believe to be the truth.
The question then is as TO whether they
are mistaken-whether to use the term
OF the day, they have been "bankoed" by
the sugar trust or by experts upon whom
they have to rely for their information.
If not, is there any other cause which
would legitimatey result in the advance
in the sugar trust stock, as has been the
case2
1t was generally conceded when the bill
passed the House that it was not in any
way advantageous to the trust, but that,
on the contrary, it took away from it the
advantage which it had under the Wilson
law. AS the bill left the House the rates
on refined sugar were 12H cents per 100
pounds higher than the rates on raw
sugar. OF course the rates on different
grades of raw sugar are different, but TAX
ing the mum ber of pounds of any grade
which were required 70 make 100 pounds
OF refined sugar it was fonnn that the
rates were on an average 1215 cents per
100 pounds less than those on refined
sugar.
This means that the sugar refners OF
tie country, VIE her III the trust or out
of it, were allowed a difference OF 121k
cents per 100 pounds, or one-eighth OF Il
cent pound difference between raw sugar
when imported and refined sugar when
imported, thus giving them an oppor-
tunily TO import raw sugar at one-eighth
L. -
which refined sugar can be i'm ported.
Since it is generally conceded that the
cost OF refining sugar is not less than about
one-eis shth OF cent a pound, 1t is ap-
parent that the rates really given to the
sugar refiners are simply the bare differ
ence between refined and unrehned sugars,
or the cost OF refining.
While the rates adopted by the Senate
were undoubtedly more advantageous to
the sugar refiner, those finally agreed
upon by the conferees made precisely the
same difference between raw and refined
sugars that the House bill made when ii
was passed by that body. The conference
report did increase the rates on refined
sugar slightly, but it also increased the
rates on raw sugar, thus making the dif-
ference in the rate of duty between raw
and refined sugar-or the ''differentlal,"
as it is called-precisely what the House
bill made it originally.
If, however, the conference report
really gave the sugar trust no advantage,
why was it that sugar trust stock ad-
vanced during the time that the bill was
in con sideration by the conferees and after
it was made public2 This is a pertinent
and proper question.
The answer to this is simpl enough.
The sugar trust, knowing that the new
bill would certainly advance the rate of
duty on sugar as protection to American
producers, has been bringing into the
country as rapidly as possible sugar in
enormous quantities, getting it in of
course under the com paratively low rates
of the Wilson law. 1t has secured the
world for sugar, and had in stock by the
time the conference report was presented
to the public over 100000 tons of raw
sugar, or, in round mum bers, 1. 500 900, 600
poupds-enough sugar with which TO load
20, 900 cars. or $500 freight trains OF 20 cars
each.
1t was thus perfectly apparent that the
trust would make whatever profit there
was between the tariff rates of the Wilson
law and the increased tariff rates named
by the Dngley law. or an aggregate profit
calculated at about $12, 000. 600. Is it sur
prising that sugar trust stock went up, in
view of the fact that this organization
would make upon the sugar which it had
brought into the country $l2 600, coo by
the mere advance which it could make on
IFS stock of sugar after the final passage of
the bill?
The explanation OF the general advance
in the stock of the trust, while good as far
as it goes, oes not account fully for this
remarkable advance as soon as the action
of the conferees became known. This
advance is. however, as readily and plain
ly accounted for. Secretary Gage had
recommended the placing of an internal
revenue tax OF l cent per pound on all un-
refined sugars in the United States when
the new tariff law should go into effect,
the object being to ompel the trust TO pay
to the Government a tax OF l cent per
pound on all this 800, 000 600 pounds of
sugar which it had accumulated waiting
for the advance which it could make by
the new tariff. Had Secretary Cages
Recommendation been accepted by Con-
gress it would haFe com pelled the trust to
pay in internal revenue taxes probably
SIS 900, 900 upon The sugar which it had
piled up in its warehouses.
That 1t was possible that it might be
inserted by the conferees, even though
not adopted by the House or Senate, is
shown by the fact that the House and
Senate have since accepted the retaliatory
amendment which was inserted by the
conferees, although not prepared by the
House or Senate. That the uncertainty
as to whether this proposed tax on the
sugar in the hands of the trust would or