The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1897-08-14

sugar. 1t is a centrifugal sugar, quite
equal to the German granulated sugar,
which is the great competing sugar that
the trust has to contend with.
X X x X
II have constantly heard upon this
floor the declaration made that if the
gentlemen framing this bill had their way
there would be no tax upon sugar 1t is
about time to talk plainly, and | propose
to do so now. [ make no threats, no
examinations. There is none of that sort
of thing in me. When the test comes
here as to whether [ will sit in my seat
and see the industry destroyed upon which
the prosperity of my State is founded, |
shall act promptly and decidedly :,
II revere and | love Democratic prin-
ciples They were born in me. What
little study and reflection [ have been able
to give to political subjects have convinced
me that the Democratic theory of govern
ment is correct, and that the Democratic
theory of tariff revenue is correct But
when the alternative comes between the
State of my love and the party to which |
owe my political allegiance, | shall stand
by my State. here distinctly state that
if the amendment proposed by the Senator
from Wisconsin is adopted and if the
promise Of the Senate Finance Committee
to give modicum Of bounty is not COM
piled with the bill will not have my sup
port OF sanction.
EXTRACT FROM SPEECH OF SENATOR
BLANCHARD Cor LA.
''Ah Mr. President, the scarecrow used
by the Senator from Wisconsin and by
Others to frighten the Senate away from this
one-eighth duty is the Sugar Trust.
Somebody is riding the Sugar Trust as a
hobby. Somebody is seeking to make a
good deal of capital out of its alleged con
nection with legislation relating to the
tariff l speak plainly, Mr. President,
but | speak without intention of offence.
The Sugar Trust-or the Sugar Refining
Company, more properly-no doubt has a
large interest in the retention of this one
eighth duty, but so have the producers of
the country. 1t is fact that all the beet
sugars made in the the country are refined
sugars. 1t is further fact that we manu-
factured in Louisiana last year 900, 600,
900 pounds Of cane sugars Of which "a
per cent were refined in the sense that
they tested at and above No. l6 Dutch
standard in color. Now, these sugars en-
Joy the additional protection which springs
from the one-eighth diferential duty just
as the sugars refined by the trust do.
Therefore, the duty Of one e-eighth is in the
bill for the benefit of the sugar producers
as much as it is for the trust. 1t was part
of the stipulation of the caucus agreement.
1t is wanted by the people for whom my
voice is raised today. 1t cannot be stricken
out by Democratic votes without violation
of the caucus understanding
x x Z; x
ssMr. President, | am not here for the
purpose of making any threat, and | do
not wish to be understood as doing 50, but
[ do say that those of us who represent
upon this floor the sugar producers of the
United States, desire that our people be
treated in good faith in this tariff bill.
Taking from us the bounty imperils the
43 votes which are needed to enact this
measure into law Taking from us now
the one eighth duty still further imperils
this vote
THE LOWEST DUTY EVER LEVIED.
It is thus shown that but for the firm
stand taken by the representatives OF The
American sugar producers no differential
tax at all upon refined sugar would have
appeared in the Wilson law as it passed
the Senate. But the ! of cent levied
by that law was the lowest differential ever
levied on refined sugar in the history Of
tariff legislation. 1t was only e-fourth
of the duty levied on the same article by
the Mckinley law, which it repealed, and
bears still lower proportion to the differ
ential duty levied by the Dingley law,
which has just been passed by the Re-
publicans.
SUGAR TAX UNDER THE DINGLEY LAW
Ii only now remains to prove that the
Dingley law, just passed, not onl y rein
states the differential duty of one-half a
cent pound contained in the Mckinley
law, but really exceeds that rate. This
will be done conclusivley. The sugar
schedule of the Dingley law consists en-
tirely of specific duties, that ingenious de
vice which the Republicans have always
employed to deceived the people. 1t reads
in its essential part as follows:
stSugars not above number sixteen Dutch
standard in color, tank bottoms, sirups of
cane, ect., testing by the polariscope not
above seventy-ive degrees, one cent per
pound, and for every additional degree
shown by the polarscopic test, three one
hundreths of one cent per pound addition
al, and fractions of degree in proportion;
and on sugar above number sixteen Dutch
standard in color, and on all sugar which has
gone through process of refining, one
cent and ninety five -hundreths of one
cent per pound.
This is the sugar schedule as it finally
passed the conference, differing from the
schedule formulated and passed by the
Senate only in slight transformation of
the specific rates of duty, whereby, as
will presently be shown, the benefit to the
Sugar Trust was ingeniously increased
Upon the face of this schedule it would ap-
pear that the diferential rate of duty
between raw sugar of Is degrees in strength
and sugar above No. 16 Dutch standard,
which is refined sugar, is ninetyfive one
hundreths of cent a pound but as a
pound of raw sugar will not produce a
pound of refined sugar the differential is
not so great.
MR.. WILSON 5 ESTIMATE OF SENATE
SCHEDULE.
1t will be remembered that shortly after
the Senate sugar schedule of the Dingley
law was made public and while it was
pending in that body, Hon. William L..
Wilson, the author of the Wilson law,
furnished a New York publication with a
detailed criticism of the same, in which he
figured it out with mathematical precision
that the diferentia on refined sugar it
carried was forty eight one hundredths Of
a cent pound, or within a minute fraction
of the half cent carried by the Mckinley
law This article was reproduced in sub
! otanca hv tho Raltimore Sun and some ot