The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1897-05-15
SUGAR SCHEDULE ANALYzED.
Hon. William l.. Wilson Shows How
1t Will Benefit the Trust.

| poses to collect an annual revenue of 500 :
600, 900 on sugar. The House bill pro
posed to collect an annual revenue of about
$52,000,000 Tariff reforlners gener-
ally agree that sugar is proper subject Of
/ taxation. In the revision of the tariff in
1884 the Secretary OF the Treasury and
the chairman of the House Committee OF
| Ways and means favored O revenue duty on
| sugar. For reasons W hich neednot be stated
| the House bill went to the Senate without
duties on sugar and the schedule now in
force was added by the Senate.
The remission of duties on raw sugar AMI
the introduction of the bounty system, in
| the Mckinley bill in 1890, was the one
| great blunder in revenue legislation which
is chargeable with all the straits Of the
| Treasury in subsequent years. 1t released
| large income and it imposed new andin-
| creasng charge on the Treasury Why this
| wa lone weaTe Acknowledgements left ndouht
| The cry Of free breakfast table, and
tile eXhortation then so often seen in tariff
| organs to the American people to ''revei
in free sugar. were afterthoughtsa and false
| pretenses. Sugar taxes were not released
| i'll favor Of the consumer, although he was
| told that they We're.
The reason was frankly told by Major
Mckinley himself to company OF The in
itiated' at a banquet OF the Tariff League
in New York Ill 1891: Now, do you know
why we put them sewing needles-on the
free list? We did 1t on the great principle
underlying protection, because we do not
manufacture them at home. For the same
reason, in 1872, we put tea and cUfferthere,
and that is the exact reason that we made
sugar free that we produce but small
percentage Of what we consume
In other words, he assured the company
of protected capitalists he was addressing
that he made sugar free because most Of
the taxes paid by consumers thereon went
into the Treasury and only a small percent
age" To home producers, and in order that
he mi ht increase the taxes on the articles
those capitalists produced, and for their
benefit, such wooden, cotton, iron ana
steel goods, tin plate, cotton ties and other
things Nothing could show more thorough
~ the collapse of the Mckinley theory Of
1890 than the necessary recourse OF the
Senate committee 10 revenue taxes on tea
and beer, and its proposal now IL gather
SG3 900, 5000 from duties on sugar, not
withstanding the fact that we still pro
duce but a small percentage of what we
consume"
What the AmCriCanpeop!e are now greatly
interested in finding QUITS whether the pro-
posed sugar duties are excessive or fairly
laid, and how far they go in concession or
benefit to the trust which is in practical
control Of the sugar market In the United
states. The monopoly power of thisorgani-
cation ami its supposed influence in shaping
the sugar sCheduieof S94 naturallyCause "A
suspicious reception oftheschedue proposed
in the uiug!ey and in the Aldrich bills
Among all the schedules of these bills ne
sugar schedules are most difficult to work
out in such a way as TO show their actual
favurltism u the trust This, 10 SOME ex-
tent lisa netssSaTyresult of the scheme upon
which theyare framed, which isintelIigtbIe
to very few except experts in refining and
in therua ofthe sugar markets. This makrs
il the moreimportan tthat ascheTne afsugar
duties shnidd be az simple ard free from
hidden oT abtruse factors as it is possible
To make it.
II Is 10 iIHpeaChmeutOft the upri ghtinten-
items OF the Trainers of the Senate COM
mittee bill. hut it's q u unfortunate fact
that of all the sugar schedules yetproposed
itisfar the most dirficutfor non-expert 10
work out and give positive opinion upon
use in years past there were grave charges
of fraud ana mdervaIua ton; imposes both
specific ana ad valcrcm duties, and when
one SuDnnses he il through with sugar
duties ia their appropriate schedule, Oh
pages ca anh 30 OF the bill, he is surprised
to find on page 1875 "a general provision
that whenever any country pays or be-
slows an export bouutyon aRyarticle duti-
AMI paid in all such cases, in addition to the
duties otherwise imposed by this act, an
additional duty equal to the net amount
Of such bounty or grant
In offering any solution of the sugar du-
ties, therefore, with reference to their pro-
lection of refined sugar, and. therefore, of
the trust, the writer disClains any special
qualification, and has no training from past
connection with tariff Legislation available
for the complex task Nor is an ylight to be
found in the hearings before the Dingley
committee for whether with or without sig
n:ficance the fact may he, no one appeared
before that committee who could claim 10
he familiar with sugar refining as it has
been carried on in recent years.
IN attempting to deal with the question,
then It is proper not only that conclusions
but the steps by which conclusions are
reached should be given, so that the APP
proXimatp correctness of the results-and
nothing more IS aimed at-may be open to |
test
What then, is the protection secured in |
the Senate committee bill to the American
Sugar Refncries Company, its combinations |
and the small independent sugar refiners?
If we take IA W sugar testing 90 degrees |
as the basis, and Mr.. benjamin Oxnard's
testimony before the DiDgley committee |
that sugar of 81 degrees produces 50 |
pounds OF crystalized or granulated sugar |
to the 100 pounds, we are not far wrong |
in assuming that 107 pounds of raw sugar
at 90 degrees will produce 100 pounds of |
refined
Now, the specific duty on 107 pounds OF |
raw sugar testing 80 degrees under the |
Aldrich bill would be 95.2 cents The |
specific Out yon 100 pounds Of sugars above |
No. Is Dutch standard and sugar that has |
gone through any process of refining |
which is the definition of refined sugars ia |
the bills SIG This gives 20.S cents |
more protection to the 100 pounds refined |
than was given TO the 107 pounds raw of |
whichit was made Both grades Of sugars |
are further dhtiabie 35 per &c ntad valorem. |
The average value per pound of all the |
duitshe raw sugars imported in 1896, as |
assessed at the custom house for taxation, |
was O2135;'of all refined, .0277. The ad |
valorem duty on 100 pounds of refined |
sugar at 80 per cent would he 81 cents; ON /
1O7 pounds OF raw would be 70 cents This |
gives Is cents more protection to the |