The Somerset reporter., 1897-07-29
The Facts of the Case.

Does the new tariff law give the sugar
trust any advantage? Are the advantages
greater or less than those of the Wilson
law. If it does not give it any advantage,
why did the sugar trust stock advance
when the report of the conference COM
mittee became public? These are the
questions that everybody will ask now
that the new law is completed, and to
which every one will want frank answer.
Here it is. The Dingey bill as it passed
the House made the rates of duty 90 re-
fined sugar one eighth of a cent per
pound more than the average rates on unre-
fined sugar. 1t is believed that the actual
cost of refining sugar is not less than one
eighth of cent pound, and that there
fore it is only ustce to sugar rehners
that the law should be so framed that re-
fined sugar when it comes in must pay a
duty OF one eighth OF a cent more than I'M
refined sugar, for if that were not the case,
refined sugar from abroad would drive
the refiners in this country out OF the
business. This one-eghth of cent per
pound, or as the experts put it, II I-2
cents per hundred pounds. is the differ
entail and was generally accepted by
the public when the Dingley bill passed
the House as entirely satisfactory and
certainly not advantageous to the uu /.
The bill ent to the Senate Committee,
and the rates were SO changed that the
"Differentaln amounted to about 81 I-2
cents ~hich is practically that of the
Wilson law. The Senate itself reduced
this materially, bringing the differental
nearer to the House rates and when the
conferees took up this feature of the bill,
the House conferees insisted upon going
back alb loutely and actually to the diff
ferential' or IL ? cents per hundred
pounds, or I-8 of a cent pound. The
Senae conferees were anxious for gen
eral increase in the protective rates of
the bill in order to give additional protec-
ton to the beet-stg growers. and
through their urgency on this subject
there was slight increase in the rates,
the "dfferential' OF l. Ia cents per
hundred pounds being, however absolute
ly retained, and no more. 1t has been
assumed that because the stock of the
sugar trust advanced Immediately after
the action of the conference committee
became known, their action must have
been advantageous to the trust. The
facts are these The trust had imported
no less then 100000 tons Of raw sugar in
the expectation and knowledge that the
new tatiff law would increase the tariff
rates, and that it would thus be able to
make large profit upon whatever sugar
it could bring in prior to its final enact
ment. Rot the Secretary of the Treasury
had recommended that an internal reye
nue. duty of one cent per pound be placed
on this raw sugar in stock. 1t was the
knowledge of the fact that the conferees
did not place any internal revenue duty
upon this sugar in stock, and that the
Lrohts of the sugar trusts on the 7oo,-
900 tons of sugar it had thus imported
would be many millions of dollars. prob
ably 10 or IL millions, and that it would
thus be able to pay enormous dividends
upon its stock during the coming year,
that caused the advance in sugar stock
when the final action of the conference
became known. This IS the story in a
nutshell, and it is but Justice to all that
the facts should be known, and that the
charges made by the Democrats that the
action of the conference was advantageous
to the trust and caused the advance in
its stock are unfounded. The advance in
stocks of the sugar trust is due to the
ptonlS WHICH IL VIII indke upon inc sugar
which it imported prior to the in
creased duties, just as wool importers
imported woods for that purpose; just as
the importers of wooden goods and other
articles upon which the tariff duty was
increased imported large stocks for the
sake of the profit they could make after
the advance in the tariff; aud but for the
fact of the possibility that the internal
revenue tax would be levied, sugar trust
stock would have gone up to its present
figure long ago.