The Saint Paul globe., 1897-05-26


In order to show that tie coihmfttee's propo-
sition does not give undue advantage to beet
sugars as compared with cane sugars the
following statement has been prepared by me
to show the dafferential; between raw and re-
ferential Of the same sugars. based ON the
rates imposed by existing law:
Differential rates on raw beet sugar. SS de-
gree analysis. and on German granulated:
Hsa$sd 81 & = Raw: entail snslal:
Present law ........104B0 n 1852 1898
Senate bill ......... 1860 1s1.70S 14.797
Mr.. Aldrich then submitted state
ments showing the diffeEentials under
varying values OF sugar, and resumed:
Under existing law German refined receives
thirty EIGHT hundredths Of cent per pound
export bounty. The couptervailing duty here
is but one-tenth Of cent per pound. The
German refiner. therefore. receives net
bounty of twenty -eight hundredths of q cent
per pound.
This enables him to sell his product at a less
price than the American refner has to pay
competition which Is driving the cane sugar
producers and reiners of the world to tho
wall.
He then replied at length to state
ment by Hon. William L. Wilson, In
which the latter estimated sthe rates
imposed by the senate committee's
proposition. Continuing, Mr.. Aldrich
said:
In the tables have submitted no allusion Is
made to the bounty provisions contained in
both the senate and house proposals. The
adoption of these or similar provisions for
countervailng duties seems to be necessity
il we are to develop the beet sugar industry
in the United States. Otherwise it will be pos
sibDe for any foreign country, by extension of
its bounties to neutralize entirely the effect of
our protective duties.
In considering the important question
whether the differential proposed by either
NJ
should be, we are bound, in fairness to take
into consideration existing conditions and the
changes which have taken place since the en-
actment OF the act Of 1894. When that act was
under discussion in the senate the difference
in the foreign value OF German granuIated and
raw beets, 88 per cent analysis was 57-100 of
cent per pound. In March the difference was
S3-100 OF cent per pound. The importation
OF refined sugars into the United States
amounted in 1891 to 4,0000 GOO pounds, and in
1892 to n, 100000 pounds The importations in
1885 amounted to $4,000, 600 pounds, while the
importations in the. single month of April,
1897, amounted to nearly 81, 600 pounds.
German refners have driven the sugar re:
Aning industry of Great Britain almost en-
tirely out of existence. They are, as / have
already stated, invading every sugar market
Of the world with their product.
Most Of the German graduated imported is
the result of continuous process of refining.
For months beet sugar and German
granulated have sold on an absolute parity OF
value, taking only into account the percentage
I OI pure sugar COutdIu6Q In edcQ. IL We as
sumo the cost of refining sugar in the United
States to be approximately one half cent per
pound, and if German refined can be sold
without loss on the same basis with German
raws, 1t must be evident that the dfferentials
suggested in the senate proposition are not
only excessive, but they are quite likely in
the near future to prove inadequate to secure
the continuance of the business of sugar refin-
ing in the United States. II the importations
of German graduated should increase at the
same ratio that they havessince the act of
1894 was adopted the Germans will certainly
secure at an early day large part Of the
American market. The PROTECTION afforded by
the different1als proposed by the senate COM
mittee is, believe, not only less by percent
age, but less with reference to the actual re-
quirements of the industry, than that afforded
by the rates imposed upon any other impor-
tant product by the terms of the bill.
HAWAIIAN TREATY.
The senator then took up the Hawaiian
treaty, and said:
The committee will also prepare and pre-
sent an amendment to the house provisions
in regard to the Hawaiian treaty. The exist
ing commercial treaty between the United
States and the government of these islands
provides for the free admission of raw sugars
the product Of the islands, into the United
States. II this treaty should remain in force
1t would result in giving a bounty to the
Hawaiian producers amounting to more than
So, 600. .000 per annum. II was not contemplated
was extended that any possible advantage Of
this kind should ever result from its terms
to the people Of the Sandwich islands.
The effect Of this bounty would undoubtedly
be to stimulate enormously the production Of
suar in the Hawaiian islands. While we can
not fairly abrogate a treaty OF this kind with
. a friendly country without notice, we believe
that negotiations should at once be entered
into looking to such a modification of the
treaty as will reduce the bounty to be paid
Hawaiian sugar producers to reasonable
sum, and the COMMITTEES Will present an
amendment looking In this direction at an
early day.
There should be no dimculty in securing
through the treaty-making power such modl-
to both countries without injury to either.
1t certainly cannot be expected that the
United States will continue for any length of
time to pay bonus of seven eight millions
of dollars per annum as an inducement to any
foreign country to trade with us. / assume
there will be no difficulty in securing proper
notifications Of the treaty SO that it will not
be necessary for the government of the United
States to give the one years notice of It's
abrogation, as provided for by Its terms.
WOOL SCHEDULE.
Important changes have been made in
Schedule K, both in the rates on wool and on
wool schedule the committee have suggested
more liberal rates to the domestic wool
grower than it has recommended for the pro-
ducer of any manufactured article in the
schedules 1t has also suggested for him
more effective protection. than 1t has ever re-
ceived under any tariff law Of the United
States at the time of its enactment. The
wool growers are given the benefit OF spe-
cifc duty upon all classes of wool. Under
the operation of this fixed specific duty the
amount Of protection afforded will increase
each new decline In the foreign value of this
raw material.
The committee has aimed to give the wool
growers rate Of duty, which will average
from 10 per cent tos 20 per cent higher than
the rates of earlier tariffs. In doing this it is
giving a higher protection upon the raw ma
terfal than upon the manufactured product
In every case. Very careful consideration has
been given to the compensatory duty on
woolen goods, with the result of reducing the
compensatory rates on low grade goods, into
whose manufacture more or less of other
materials than wool enter. On the high grade
goods the compensatory duties are fixed on
the same basis that has obtained in all pre-
vious tariffs.
The house bill rate of 80 per cent on carpet
woods costing less than 13 cents pound has
created more agitation and opposition than
any other feature OF the wool schedule. 1t
Is alleged by the wool growers that this low
rate Of duty on carpet wools destroys the
protection offered upon The higher grades OF
weol, by reason of the temptation 1t offers
to import these low Weols to be used in
cheviots golang suits and other popular
fabrics which do not require fine wools.4
Without undertaking to affirm the correctness
Of these allegations regarding the ex ensive
use OF those carpet woods for clothing pur-
poses, the committee recognized the fact that
there Is some such use made OF them To,
remove all possible ground for complaint on
this score they have fixed the duties ON class.
8 woods at cents a pound under 10 cents
value, and at cents pound over that valu-
alton. Under these duties the ad valorem
equivalents will arrange on the various clips
from 35 per cent up to 60 per cent. and. in
some instances 70 per cent, and they are
niger than in any previous law. 1t Is certain
that under these duties foreign carpet wools
cannot be imported b tabe the place of do-f
mestic woods in the cloth manufacture.
Taking this feature Of the wool schedule
3OtO accOnnt II Is a fact 0edn1Coly Qcm0ne
strated by the market reports that the protec-
ton given the American wool grower under