The Black Hills union. [volume] (Rapid City, Pennington County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1889-1904, 1897-06-18
Number "A.
Sugar Trust Exists No Longer.

Sugar Trust Exists No Longer.
We are assured by the Sugar Trade
Journal of May 13-organ Of the sugar
trust-that "if ever a monopoly existed
in the sugar refining business it exists
no ionger, and it is not likely that it
will ever be renewed" This is delight
full news. The journal was discussing
an amendment to the senate bill to have
refined sugars pay the same duties as
raw sugars in cases where the manufac-
ture is controlled by a monopoly. If this
visionary proposal" should pass the
senate, it will jeopardize the tariff
bill and the sugar trusts tens of mill
lions of surplus profits, which are SO
near at hand that the mouths of Have
meyer and Searles are watering for
them. The sugar trust trembles at the
prospect, and tries to keep up its cour~
age by having it's organ inform the
world that "a lot of such visionary pro-
posals will, no doubt. be introduced
while the bill is under discussion, but
in the end the sound Judgment men will
control and tariff bill be passed with
out very much change from the senate
schedule"
The trust may be right. 1t usually is,
for it can predict what will happen to
the sugar schedule Of the senate bill. It
knows what demands will be made by
it's agents and tools in the senate, and
it also knows the power of those who
make demands to enforce them. 1t puts
$7O,00O,OOO against the interests of TO-
OOO, 1000 people, and it knows from ex-
| soI> - k1oo
senate, where two or three hold the bal
ance of power.
No, there is no sugar trust, and never
was one, and in the end the sound judg-
ment will prevail. when the devil was
sick the devil a saint would be-"
Perpetual Motion by Protection.
The California argument for high
er fruit duties is sort of perpetual mo-
ton. The only disadvantage the Cali
| fornia fruit raiser is at is to be found
in the cost of his land, but the only
thing that makes his land expensive is
the profitableness of fruit culture.
| So the matter works out in this way:
| The great profits of fruit raising sent
the value of land up to hundreds Of dol
lars an acre. The interest on the value
of the land makes large item in a
fruit raiser's balance sheet, and he feels
the need of a high price for his fruit.
This Senator Jones procures for him by
letting it be known that he win not vote
for the tariff bill unless it contains du-
ties on hides and increased duties on
fruits and the cheapest sorts of wool.
The increased duties adds to the prof
it's of fruit culture, and the price of land
takes another rise, whereupon the fruit
grower complains that the interest on
his land investment is SO great or the
rental he has to pay for his land is so
high that there is an insufficient profit
in the business for him, and the only
thing that will save him from disaster
is more duty.
Logically this process can be carried
on indefinitely. Practically it cannot.
because with the increase in the price
of fruit the consumption of fruit will
decline. The consumer will be worse
off for the change. The grower, so far
as he is not to be considered as land
owner will be no better off, but the
value of the land will be as high as the
profits of fruit culture will permit
journal of Commerce and Commercial
| p,1