Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-12-02
RECIPROCITY in SUGAR.
Reduced Duties on Philippine and CT

| [Washington Cor. New York Tribune.
There is good reason for believing
that in his annual message to congress
the president will recommend sub
stantial reduction in the duty on raw
sugar coming from the Philippines ant
Cuba. If he were to listen to the ad
vice of some people. he would recon-
mend the abolition of that duty alto
! gether. He is not prepared, however
| to go so far as that.
| In opposition to any and every chang,
! in the present sugar schedule Their
have gathered in Washington the rep
lresentatiyes of number of Interests
who are prepared to ply congress will
arguments to show that the government
is under obligations to maintain TIL,
status quo at any cost, and in defianc,
of all considerations of policy, COCO
morals or common sense. AT the heat
of this opposition to the president.
policy stands one of the Oxnards, who
with his brothers, is interested In the
manufacture in this country OF bee
root sugar. Judging from the fact thai
he has taken a large house this winter
admirably adapted for entertaining, il
something of fight on his hands at the
coming session. Here are the interests
which may be considered 10 have pooled
their issues:
First-The beet root sugar manufac-
turers of the west.
Second-The cane sugar growers OF
Louisiana.
Third-The sugar producers of Ha-
wall.
Fourth-The sugar producers OF
Porto Rico.
The entire consumption of sugar in
the United States for the present year
is estimated at 2,360,5S5 tons. OF this
amount the four interests just cited
will furnish. at a very liberal estimate
about one million tons, as follows.
Tons.
Domestic beet root svIar...... 10000
Louisiana cane sugar.. ........ 100000
Hawaii Gree sugar). ........... 100000
Porto Rico Gree sugar.. $500. 100000
Total ........ 1880. 5000. ZOO, 900
The amount of sugar on which duty
is paid is. therefore. 1,360.5S5 tons.
The average duty collected on ton
Of raw sugar. varying according to the
quality of the sugar and the prices
ruling in the market whence 1t is
shipped. is about s36 The revenue,
therefore, derived by the government
from sugar is approximately $4S,9S1,-
060. If it be true that the price to
the consumer is increased to the ex-
tent of the duty. as there seems reason
to believe it is in this case, then the
people Of this country are paying $S4,-
$1,000 more for their sugar than they
would If sugar were free. Or, to put
it differently, 1t costs the people near
ly sS5. 100000 to get less than $50, 600, 900
into the treasury.
PLAYING FOR HIGH STAKES.
The magnitude Of the stakes for
which Mr.. Oxnard and his friends are
playing can be gagged by a glance at
the following table, which is COM
puted on the basis of an average duty
of $50 a ton.
Tons Protection.
Domestic beet sugar. 10000 $5.400,000
planters 100000 12,600 900
Hawaiian planters $4,000 12.600,o 900
Porto Rican planters. 10000 100000
Totals 100000 s36,o00,000
Here. then, is a tidy little pile OF
$50 5000 900 to be defended, and here are
some of the arguments which will be
used in the defense:
First-The beet root sugar industry
Is like any other, entitled to protection.
So are the planters of Louisiana.
Second-f left in the enjoyment Of
protection, the beet root sugar industry
will grow, and, together with the sugar
produced in Louisiana, will before long
be able to supply the demands OF the
home market.
THRIFT will then have made the
United States, SO far as its sugar sup
ply is concerned. independent of the
rest of the world.
Fourth-It furnishes new crop to
the farmer, and, therefore, new source
OF income to him.
ADMINISTRATION ARGUMENTS.
While the figures already given
might we'll be left to speak for them
perhaps, to note some of the arguments
which will be made In defense of the
position. There is. to
begin with, the question of free sugar.
Is or is not the croy of free sugar a
violation of republican doctrine? Is
the demand for lowering the duties on
sugar, indeed, irreconcilable with an
adherence to the principles of protec-
ton? 1t seems less strange that such a
question should be asked at this time
than it should be asked at all. Mems
political memories are proverbially
tire cherous, and in this instance they
seem doubly so. Not more than a
dozen years ago the republican shibbol-
eth was .fee breakfast table for the
American workingman," andinresponse
to that demand the Mckinley bill made
sufar free. The democratic party re-
stored the duty, and the Dingley bill
continued 1t. not because its author
thought a republican doctrine was in
volved in taxing the workingman's
breakfast, but because the democratic
party had demonstrated that, while 1t
could pull down and destroy almost
anything under the sun not already
dead, it could create one thing to per-
lection, to wit, a deficit. And it was to
wipe out this deficit that the 100000
600 tax on sugar was retained. To
say, therefore, that the abolition of the
sugar duty is violation of republic
can pincriples, or that a modification
in the schedules at present In force is
an abandonment of the doctrine of pro-
lection, is, in the opinion of those who
share the governments views, to ignore
the records of the past.
TO HASTEN PHILIPPINE PACIFI-
CATION.
There is, however, more important
feature of this whole question which
a nnaals to the Judgment of those in