The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-05-27

UIe. have made cne PUBIC very SUSPICIOUS
Of every measure affecting the industry.
So far as possible the pubic should be pro-
sected against extortion. but II would be
folly to stand in the way OF the develop
rnent OF native sugar manufacture because
incidentally somebody might benefit by
the profitable employment Of capital In
this country instead of abroad
So far as the Pacific coast II concerned.
It's interest lies an the production OF beet
sugar and Incidental thereto In the treaty
with the Hawaiian islands. There has
been considerable controversy over the
subject of the treaty and its proposed abb
rogarSon. but since Senator Aldrich. who
is the recognized authority on tariffs. cx-
presses the cz,inion that the treaty should
he abrogated. beet growing states should
maintained. Under the treaty, raw sugar
produced on the islands 10 admitted TO this
country free Of duty. That privilege has
resulted in enormously stimulating the
production Of sugar In the Hawaiian
islands. and the United States now pays
bonus of s.. oOo, CO., IT certainly cannot be
expected. AZ Mr.. Aldrich says, that the
United States Will continue for any length
OF time TO pay a bonus of s. 000.ee or
s. 0o0. 600 per annum as an inducement to
any foreign country TO trade with as. In
the controversy which arose in San Fran
cisco between the merchants wao favor
the treaty and others who are opposed to
1t. the latter had decidedly the better OF
the argument There was circulated
widely statement authorized by a meet
ing to oppose the abrogation OF the treaty
but it suffocates whatever merit that side
Of the controversy has by its ponderous
and involved sentences. II there is any
argument in favor OF the continuance OF
the treaty, the merchants of San Fran
cisco have utterly failed to present It in
such way as to be understood. On the
other hand. the statement made by Claus
Spreckels in support Of the abrogation OF
the treaty is so cogent that II would seem
TO leave no doubt that the best interests OF
the Pacific coast would be fostered by
resembling the treaty. This country takes
from Hawaii its entire crop. which it is ex-
pected will this year amount to about 235-
600 tons. for which we will pay about
$15.Ooo,o 600. II that money could be kept in
this country II would make a considerable
difference TO the farmers who should sup
ply sugar beets. The use Of beet sugar
would not entirely supersede that of
sugars of the finer grades. but the surplus
could be shipped north and east as far as
the Mississippi river. and We should be at
least able to check the great quantity
We now import from Germany. Our an
nual consumption is about 100000 tons,
and of that quantity only 10 COO tons, or
per cent, were beet sugars produced in the
United States. The worlds consumption
of beet sugars Is 6lia per cent. so that
there is rich field for our products. We
may not be able to supersede refined
is a wide margin between per cent. and
6li2 per cent. Besides this. the consump-
ton of sugar is increasing. not only by the
increase In population. but by the increase
in the number of articles prepared with
sugar and especially in the preservation
of fruit.
The abrogation OK the treaty with Hawaii
will not at once accomplish this. but most
of the sugar imported from there is used
on the Pacific coast. and the impetus given
to native product would serve to popu-
iarize beet sugar raising in every part OF
the country. Spreckels processes only to
sreak In the interests of California, but IL
once a demand for sugar beets is created
this state will be able to hold its own with
any other on the Coast. There are three
factories running now. one turning out
20 600 tons of sugar annually and two
others which would produce between
60 900 and 30 0ac tons per year. In that state
alone the diversion OF the trade would give
employment to thousands of people and
enhance the value OF all farming property
in the sugar beet sections. 1t will not be
polite to abrogate the treaty sum,narily.
but IL the Hawaiian government should
refuse to modify 1t. only one years notice
is necessary to determine it. Even with
out that there Is every prospect Of a
marked Increase In the demand for beet
sugar. az one of the results of the passage
Of the tariff act.
Mr. Bryan is having hard work to keep