The Pacific commercial advertiser., 1897-05-20
0XNARD SPEAKS
He Questions the Motives Of the
Hawaiian Planters.
CRlTlCISES THIS GOVERNMENT
Beet Sugar Men Are Well
Organized.
Hawaii Raised a War Scare to
Excite Sympathy of
United States.

What the beet sugar men think of
the Dingley tariff bill in so far as it
concerns Hawaii, and annexation may
be judged from the following article
in the Washington Post:
A representative of The Post recent
with Mr. Henry Oxnard, who repre-
sents here the beet sugar industry; and
the conversation developed an inter
esting condition of things.
I'm what way, Mr. Oxnard, would
the annexation of Hawaii, and how
does the existing treaty with the ISL
ands, affect our revenues and dOmes-
tic sugar production?"
Before that question is answered,
the situation of our domestic produc
chs should be considered. Prior to
1890, the duty on sugar has been very
liberal The Mckinley law made sugar
ducers a bounty in lien of the duty
10 encourage and protect them, less,
however, than the duty it displaced by
from one-half to ~ cents a pound.
In August, 1894, the bounty was sud
denly repealed and sugar received un-
der the 40 per cent. rate of duty about
1 cent of protection, reduced by foreign
export sugar bounties to, say three
quarters of a cent only. And that is
the present situation. We are now
menaced by free sugar from Hawaii
and cheap bounty-fed sugars from Eu
rope Free sugar from Hawaii
amounts, to all intents and purposes,
to bounty on that sugar, and is dis
elimination against other foreign SUI
gar. There really lis little or no pro-
lection for domestic sugar in the pre-
sent law, because it costs us SO much
more to make sugar than it does
abroad, where there is ample cheap
labor and material, and where the in
dustry is long established.
"In the Dingley bill there is some
protection for sugar, but not sufficient
encoura cement to invest additional
capital, and that ought to be an OBJ
ule. In fact, the Republicans at st.
Louis promised it. One of it's resolu
tions read: The Republican Party
favors such protection as viii lead to
the production on American soil of all
the sugar which the American people
use. and for which they pay other
countries more than $100,000,000 an
nually.'"
Are you anticipating that Congress
will liquidate that promise?"
/ II doubt very much whether the re-
suit can be reached without an eXer-
else OF more liberality than is shown
in the Dingley bill. We have assumed,
of course, that the st. Louis resolution
was a sincere expression of party pol
icy and our sugar producers are urg-
ing upon the majority a test of SINGER
ity. Present conditions, therefore, en-
able us to see more how the Hawaiian
treaty affects domestic sugar prOduc-
ton. Manufacturers of domestic sugar
and our beet growers are unalterably
opposed to a continuance of that treaty.
now that eighteen years have elapsed
since it was made
BEET SUGAR MEN ORGANIZED.
Are the domesic sugar interests or
SahiHou III any way anu " "Ai0'' q
tent?"
Eyes; fully organized. AS President
of the American Beet Sugar Associa-
tion,' I represent, directly and indi-
rectly. thousands of farmers, and the
domestic manufacturers as well, and
they are cooperating with the Amer
lean Sugar Growers Society which
has auxiaIliary clubs all over the coun-
try. while in Louisiana and Texas
there are two powerful sugar organi-
zations AS an evidence of the strength
of these agricultural clubs, there are at