The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-02-24
OxNARD'S SPEECH
His Plea For "AmGriCan Farmers"
Made at washington.
GREAT INDUSTRY To DEVELOP
Hawaii'S Few Tons Look
Very Large.
Remarkable Interest Shown in
Anti = Trust Sugar
BeetS.
GREAT INDUSTRY To DEVELOP

| (Argument of II. T. Oxnard, President of
the american Beet Sugar Associa-
tion," before the Ways and Means
| Committee of the House of Repre-
sentatives, December 30, 1860
Mr.. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee:
| I appear here in my own behalf, repre-
| senting three beet-sugar factories, two
| in Nebraska and one in California, and
| also president of THE American Beet
| Sugar Association the object of which
| association is to foster and develop the
| beet-sugar industry of the United States.
| The present duty on sugar is not Suf-
| ficiently protective to develop the indus
| try and there is no encouragement in it
| for the investment of additional capital.
| When L appeared before the Ways and
Means Committee on the then pending
Mckinley bill, L made the prediction that
| if adequate protection were given to sug-
| ar the beet-sugar industry would make
| immense strides within few years. The
| very year after the passage of that bill
| three beet-sugar factories were erected.
| The fear of the repeal of the Mckinley
| law and the present tariff have retarded
the investment of further capital in the
development of the beet-sugar industry,
| which, however, stands ready to en-
| bark as soon as it is satisfied that the
United States intends to carry out, not
| only fair, but a liberal policy toward
| domestic sugar.
II IS admitted beyond a doubt by all
those conVersant with what has been
| done in the past five years that beet
sugar can be grown and developed as an
Iindustry in at least 20 different States of
| the Union. Had the sugar provisions of
| the Mckinley bill remained in force dur
| ing the period promised, IA years, we
would doubtless have seen beet-sugar
| factories in all those States and the
United States supplied from it's own soil
with it's sugar.
ed by the Ways and Means Committee
in regard to sugar from 1888 TO 1894, es-
sentially protective, if continued in
new tariff bill, will the United States
in 10 years producing a very material
part of all the sugar which the people
of this country consume, made at home
| Dy it's own inhabitants. 1t is admitted
on all sides that the Government needs
| more revenue. Why should 1T not get 1t
in part from sugir from the same source sou se
years of Republican ascendency in fact,
during the entire existence of the Gov
ernment, save and except since 1894? we
say that any schedule on sugar which
has been in force since 1860, except the
Wilson BILL would be satisfactory to us
and would allow us to develop the beet
sugar industry.
Sugar is the most far-reaching and inn
portant factor in the tariff equation, and
we think it unfortunate that the import
ance of it's domestic production has been
so indifferently understood
THE MKINLEY BILL
increased the production of cane sugar
nearly 100 per cent, and of beet sugar
over 800 per cent, comparing 1896 with
1890.
There was nothing new nor novel in
the bounty policy. Because of surplus,
revenue we applied to sugar what had
been often suggested
Aside from the Observation-Disclosures
features of our bounty policy of 1890,
and independent of it's future saving to
the nation, its economic results while in
operation have been frequently lllustrat-
ed.
1t was attacked as unconstitutional but
after a tedious, eXasperating and eXpen-
Sive delay in the Treasury, the supreme
Court decided that the appropriation Tor
the bounty was a debt, and that Con
gress had power to appropriate for 1t,
and that the court rarely, if ever queS-
ton the power of Congress to approprl-
ate money.
pNate for the production Of corn, wheat
or oats as for sugar production. The er-
ror il this is fundamental In the fiTst
place Congress did not appropriate for
beets but for sugar, manufactured
product while from the standpoint Of
national policy or eXpedIency, we appro-
priated for something of which We did
not raise sufficient and which cost US
| over 500. .O00, 600 annually. Nor was the
bounty policy offered to aid a class.
| That idea ignores the primary object
which was national in its character. As
no person was prevented from making
sugar and participating in the bounty,
| it could not have been offered 70 pehehI
| any particular class of persons.
CAN WE PRODUCE OUR SLIAh
1t is of course, of material Importance
| TO consider whether we can produce sug-
ar in sufficient quantity within a rea-
sOnable time for home consumption. Ihe
| answer to this must primarily depend
upon the question whether we have the
/ soil and the climate requisite TO obtain
desired results That we have, has been
! demonstrated by the investigation of
| practical sugar producers, as well as by
| professor Wiley, of the Agricultural De-
! Dartrnent, and is proven by the seven
| factories now in actual operation in Cal
| ifornia Nebraska, New Mexico, Utah and
| Wisconsin, producing T5,O00,00O pounds of
| beet sugar per annum.
| AS to our soil, we have in bulletin
| from Professor Wiley, of the Agricultur-
| al Department. ample evidence to sus-
| tain the assertion that we have beet sug-
| ar soil in Colorado, California, Indiana.
| Illinois. Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota,
| Michigan, Nebraska, New York, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Ohio,