Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1897-07-26
FORESIGHT OF THE TRUST.
RUSHED SUGAR IN BEFORE THE
TARIFF LAW TOOK EFFECT.
While Democrats Were Delaying the
Bin the Trust Was bringing in
shipIoads Duty Free-Trust
Not Favored by
Tariff.

the tariff bill give TO the sugar trust an!
undue advantages. and if not, is there an!
other cause for the advance in the stock'
OF the trust?
These are inquiries which every citlzer
is making. and properly. They are perth
nent TO the occasion. 1t is right that h'
should make them. and 1t is right thai
they should be answered, and answered
frankly.
That sugar trust stock has advanced as
Il 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 cause? Does the bill
give the trust any secret and mysterious
advantages of which the public does not
know in detail? 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 in whose long public career there has
been no suspicion OF dishonesty, are will
fully and knowingly misstating the facts
OF making assertions that are not based
upon facts, or at least what they believe
10 be facts.
These men assert that the tariff rates of
the bill give the refiners no more pr0tec-
tion than the actual cost Of refining viz,
who knows the men making this assertion
will believe that they are stating other
than what they believe to be the truth
The question. then. is as to whether they
arc mistaken-whether, to use the term of
the day-they have been ''buncOed" by the
sugar trust or by experts upon whom they
have to rely for their information. II not,
is there any other cause which would legit
imstely result in the advance in sugar
trusS stock as has been the case?
1t vas generally conceded when the bill
passed the house that it was not in any
way advantageous TO the trust but that,
OF the contrary. 1t took away from it the
advantage which il had under the Wilson
law. A the bill left the house the rates on
refined sugar were l2ls cents per 100 pounds
Higner than the rates on raw sugar. OF
course. the rates on different grades of
raw sugar are different, but taking the
number OF pounds of any grade which were
required 10 make 100 pounds of refined su-
gar, II was found that the rates Were N
an average Of l25z cents per 100 pounds less
than those on refined sugar This means
that the sugar refiners Of the country,
whether in the trust or out of il. were al
lowed "A difference of 12i2 cents per 100
pounds, or one-eighth Of a cent per pound,
dinerence between raw sugar when import
ed ana refined sugar when imported. thus
giving them an opportunity to import raw
sugar at One-eighth of a cent pound less
than the rates at which refined sugar can
be imported. Since it is generally conceded
that the cost Of refining sugar is not less
than about one-eighth of a cent pound,
II Is apparent that the rates really given
10 the sugar retiners are simply the bare
uiherence between refined and unrefined
sugars or the cost Of refining.
While the rates adopted by the senate
were undoubtedly more advantageous to
the sugar refiners, those finally agreed
upon by the conferees made precisely the
same difference between raw and refined
sugars that the house bill made when il
was passed by that body. The conference
report did Increase the rates on refined
sugar slightly, but IL also increased the
rates on raw sugar, thus making the dif-
ference in the rate of duty between raw
and refined, or the 'diferential," as it is
II originally.
If, however, the conference report really
gave the sugar trust no advantage why
was II that sugar trust stock advanced
curing the time that the bill was in con-
sideratiOn by the conferees and after IT
was made public? This is a pertinent and
proper question.
The answer to this is simple enough. The
sugar trust. knowing that the new bill
would certainly advance the rate of duty
on sugar as "a protection to American pro-
ducers, has been bringing into the country
as rapidly as possible sugar in enormous
quantities. getting it in, of course, under
the comparatively low rates of the Wilson
law. II has secured the world for sugar
and had in stock by the time the confer
ence report was presented to the public
over 10000 tons of raw sugar, or, in round
number. 1.5OO, 900. 900 pounds. Enough sugar
with which to load 10000 cars, or $500
freight trains Of twenty cars each
II 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 Dingley law, or an aggregate profit
calculated at about Sl2 eco OON. Is II sur
prtsing that sugar trust stock went up in
view of the fact that this organization
would make upon the sugar which Il had
brought into the country Sl2 900 600 by the
mere advance which 1t could make on its
stock OF sugar after the final passage of
the bill7
The explanation Of the general advance
in the stocks of the trust, while good as
far as IL goes. does not account fully for
this remarkable advance as soon as the
action Of the conterees became known.
This advance Is however as readily and
plainly accounted for. Secretary Gage had
recommended 10 congress the placing of an
internal revenue tax of ] cent per pound
on all unrefncd sugars in the United States
when the now tariff law should go into ef-
feet, the object being to compel the trust
10 pay the government a tax of l cent per
pound on all this 1900 100000 pounds of
sugar which It had accumulated, waiting
for the advance which 1t could make bv
the new tarin. Had Secretary Cages rec
Cmmendation been accepted by congress.
II would have compelled the trust 10 pay
IN Internal revenue taxes probably Si5.6l0-
oe upon the sugar which II had piled up in
Its warehouses. That it was possible that
u might be inserted by the confprees even
Enough not adopted by the house or SON
ate, is shown by the fact that the house
and senate have since accepted the retalia-
tory amendment which was inserted bv the
ContereeS, although not prepared by the
house or senate, That the uncertainty rs
"a whether this proposed tax on the sugar
IN tn" hands Of the trust would or would
not be imposed made many investors hesi-
tate * apparent. and that The certainty
that u would not he imposed assured them
Of the prospective ability Of the trust to
pay l1rC" dividends during the coming
year 's equally apparent. This assurance
OF course came when the action of tho
confer,ss was mad, public and IL was
known that Secretary Cages recommended
tton had not been needed. This knowledge
showed fully and cOnClusivcly TO those
following the subject closely first that
the sugar trust would maxi. this Iarpe
profit by reason Of the increased duty, -,
sugar, ana. second. that II would not he
compelled 10 pay out any OF that profit in
the proposed internal revenue tax rpoD fts
sugar in stock. and those who had C3lcu-
lated the profits which II would make dur
ing the coming year on this great accum-
Ilatiou OF sugar saw that the prohts would
be great and thu dividends large
The result was the advance. in surar
stock about which there has been so rniicb
talk and denunciation AMI which advance
was not due 10 any permanent advantapa
which. the new tariff bill gives 10 the trJst
Tor. on the contrary. the difference r.
tween raw aud refined sugars under tbo
new bill as already indicated is l2I, cents
per hundred pounds, while under the V-il
son law II is 2Zi2 cents per hundred pounds
ERRORS IN THE TARIFF BILL
Two Conflicting sections Refer In ,bo
nmU