Kansas City journal., 1897-05-26


| prepared a series Of statements which l
submit for your consideration. showing lhS
| actual difference between the rates imposed
/ by the schedule upon raw sugars OF dllIer-
ent grades and refined
In order 10 show that the committee :
proposition does not give undue advantage
/ TO beet sugars as compared with cane sug-
/ ars, the following statement has been pre-
pared by me TO show the dlfIerehilaI ~ me pc
| parison with the differental of the same
sugars based on the rate imposed by eN-
"Diferential rates on raw beet sugar IS
! degree analysis, and on German granu-
| lated: .,,
Refined. Raw. entail
| Present law .........l 80 So 4@
| Senate bill ...........lS6.JO lhl.tS It-''
COUnterVaiIIng Duties.
| Mr.. Aldrich then submitted statements
/ showing the differentials under varying
/ values of sugar. and resumed:
Under existing laws German refined re-
| ceives $500 of cent per pound export
| bounty. The counteryailing duty here is
| but one-tenth Of a cent per pound. Iht
| German retner, therefore, receives net
! bounty of 2S-1OO of a cent per pound. This
| enables him to sell his product at a less
/ price than the American retiner has to pay
| for g6 degree centrifugals. II is this kind
/ of competition which is driving the cane
| sugar producers and retners OF the WorId
| to the wall
He then replied at length to statement
| by the Hon. William J.. wilson, IN Willch
| the latter estimated the rates imposed by
| the senate committees proposition. Con-
| tinuing. Mr. AldTich said: I'm the tables
! l have submitted no allusion is made to the
1 bounty provisions contained by both the
senate and house proposals. The adoption
| of these or similar provisions for counter
| vailinE duties seems to be necessity II
| We are to develop the beet sugar Industry
in the United States. Otherwise ii will be
| possible for any foreign country. by eN-
| tension of its Dounties, to neutralize entire
| ly the effect of our protective duties.
If We assume the cost OF rehnlnS sugar
States
ono-half a cent per pound, and if German
refined can be sold without loss on the
same basis with German raWs, II must pc
eVidCnt that the differentidls suggested in
the senate proposition are not only not eN-
near future. TO prove inadequate to secure
the continuance of the business of sugar
retiring in the United States. If the i'm
| poTtations of German granulated should
Increase in the same ratio that they have
since the act of 1884 was adopted the Ger
man.. will certainly secure at an early day
| a large part of the American market The
prote ction afforded by the differentials pro-
posed by the senate committee is, believe,
not only less by percentage, but less with
reference to the actual requirements of the
! industry than that, afforded by rates i'm
posed upon any other important product
by the terms of the bill
Internal Revenue Taxes.
Nothing in the theory Of protection in
teTferes with the imposition of further in
teInal revenue taxes by protectlonists
whenever such a course is found desirable
for revenue purposes In the future it is
almost certain that we shall be obliged to
depend more and more upon taxes of this
nature for necessary revenue.
In the years to come We must expect a
decrease rather than an increase IN The
pTiEcipaI Schedules of the tariff.
with duties adequately protective upon
manufactures of cotton. wool. silk and flax,
We may expect a constantly diminishing
revenue from the importations of these
products. IL the rates imposed by this bill
on sugar should be found to lead to the
r. ri
try in the United States, We may expect
large reductions year by year from the
contemplated revenue from sugar.
Some of the most sanguine advocates of
the policy of encouraging beet sugar pro-
ouctlon ". tnls coultI! ntiltNe niit w
shall within ten years, produce all of our
@The legitimate result OF a protective
policy is to give the American market 10
American producers. When this becomes an
accomplished fact the revenue growing out
of productive duties disappears. 1t must
l., Io,-iJapt fbarefore that we must lOOk
Tor other sources of revenue. Whether II
should be along the line of an increase or
SugCe sted, or whether some other sources
of revenue should be sought, it is not neces-
sary now to determine.
jectors will always be found to any plan
for increased taxation. n this particular
case the committee is only strenuous that
| a wise public policy requires that our reve-
nUes should at all times be equal TO our
expenditures and that the people of the
| any revenue measure that does not provide
| adequate revenue for this purpose.
The Hawaiian Treaty.
The senator then took up the Hawaiian
| treaty and SAID: The committee will also
| prepare and present an amendment to the
house provisions in regard to the Hawaiian
| treaty. The existing commercial treaty
between the United States and the govern
ment of those islands provides for the free
| admission of raw sugars the product of the
| islands, into the United States. If this
| treaty should remain in force II would re-
| suit in giving bounty to the Hawaiian
| sugar producers amounting to more than
| 5000 coo per annum. II was not contem-
| plated, when the original treaty was made
| or when il was extended, that any possible
| advantage of this kind would ever result
from its terms to the people of the Sand
wiCh islands.
The effect of this bounty would undoubt-
edly be to stimulate enormously the pro-
| duction of sugar in the Hawaiian islands.
| While we cannot fairly abrOgate a treaty
OF this kind with Il friendly country with
| out notice. We believe that negotiations
| should at once be entered into looking to
| reduce the bounty to be paid Hawaiian su-
gar producers to a reasonable sum. and the
committee will present an amendment look
fng in this direction at an early day.
| There should be no difficulty in securing
| through the treaty making power such
| notifications of the treaty as will be salts
! factory to both countries without injury to
| either. 1t certainly cannot be expected that
| the United States will continue for any
| Il
or 100000 per annum as an induCement
| to any foreign country to trade with us.
| | assume there will be no difficulty in Sc
| curing proper notifications of the treaty
| so that 1t will not he necessary for the gov
| ernment of the United States to give the
| one years notice Of its abrogation, pro-
| vided for by its terms"
| The Wool Schedule.
| In dealing with the wool schedule" said
| Mr.. Aldrich. the committee has suggested
| moro liberal rates TO the domestic wool
| grover than il has recommended for the
| producer of any manufactured article in
| tne schedules: il has also suggested for him
| q more effective protection than he has
| ever received under any tariff law Of the
! United States at the time of its enactment.
| The wool growers are given the benefit of
! a specific duty upon all classes OF wool.
! duty. the amount of protection afforded
! foreign value of this raw material The
| committee mas aimed to give the wool
| growers a rate of duty which will average
| from 10 per cent TO 20 per cent higher than
/ the rates of earlier tariffs. In doing this
| Il Is giving a higher protection upon the
| raw material than upon the manufactured
| product i'm every case.
| THE house bill rate of % per cent on car
| pet woods costing less than IL cents a pound
J has created more agitation and opposition
| than any other feature of the wool SChed-
! ulC. II is alleged by the wool growers that
J this low rate of duty on carpet wOols de-
! StroyS the effectiveness of the protection
! afforded upOu the higher grades of wool