Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1897-06-10
Sugar i'm the Tariff.

sugar III the dIEis
Statistics show that the per capita
consumption of sugar in the United
States il more than 63 pounds each year
OF this quantity less than one-seventh
il obtained from domestic sources
While the home product has never
reached 73D, ,000. 600 pounds in any year
the import of foreign sugar passed A.
345, OO0, 900 pounds in 1894 and is on an
average about 8, 700, 000, 900 pounds an
nually. With such an enormous move
ment small duty on raw sugar VIII
produce a large revenue and this artl-
Gle is the most important in the entire
tariff list. 1t can be made to yield more
than so. 900, 900 year in revenue with
ont increasing the burden Of the tax
payer.
Unfortunately the rate Of duty 70 be
Maid by sngar ia dificult to determine.
All Continental Europe has gone into
the business Of producing sugar from
beet, and by excessive protection the
industry has been stimulated beyond
the needs OF the home markets. To
find an outlet for the surplus, bounties
were offered, and this general policy
has resulted in supplying a neutral for
eign market-like England cheap
err sugars than are enjoyed by the popu-
lations Of the producing countries. Eu-
rope has each year an increasing guam
tity Of beet sugar to be disposed of, and
in the competition for sales the price is
low to the purchaser.
This policy Of encouraging a home
product of sugar from beet has acted
disastrously on the older industry OF
growing sugar cane in the colonies OF
these European powers. Not one OF
these powers can afford to buy the cane
product, for every pound Of such sugars
narrows the market for the beet sugar.
Even England is entirely supplied by
beet sugars from the Continent, and has
seen her sugar colonies slowly decaying
and suffering from strangling depress-
ion Shut out from Europe, the only
large market Of cane sugar was TO be
found in the United States, and that is
a monopoly market of the strictest
kind
For there il only one great purchaser
of sugars in the United States-the
Sugar Trust, 40 called. The immense
investments represented by sugar plants
and purchases of raw sugars for refining
are controlled by one corporation This
corporation fixes the price for the Lou
siana cane grower as well az for the
beet grower Of Nebraska or California.
1t has its agents in Cuba, the Philip
pine Islands, and Europe, buying wher-
ever ii can buy the cheapest and set
ting one market against another to se-
cure low prices. It's power over the
cane product IL wellnigh absolute. and
it uses the beet sugar to check any at
tempt Of the cane-growers to throw of
its domination Much az may be said
in favor Of the decided improvements
in sugar manufacture introduced by
this concentration and organization Of
a great industry, 1t IL unquestionably
bad for the producer to sell in market
monopolized 80 rigidly against his in
terest
The trust has built mp monopoly Of
ysy,rohaao throuOh fayorin, industrial
conditions 1t depends upon tariff leg
isIation for monopoly Of sales. The
duty on raw sugars IN revenue duty;
that on refined protective duty. To
give too high protective duty is to per
init the trust to control beyond redress
the regulation Of prices to the consumer.
The Senate bill has imposed n compound
dnty- specific and ad valorem on
sugar, which gives the trust greater
advantage than 1t now possesses: an ad-
vantage against every consumer OF
sugar In the United States Careful es-
Inmates show that nearly one-half cent
pound profit IN given 10 the trust on
every pound Of sugar refined-a profit
which means tens Of millions Of dollars.
Such duty assures for IL as great
joys over the producer; and no single
duty in the Senate measure requires
fuller explanation Of the motives lead
ing to it-Harpers Weekly.