The Washington times., 1901-10-23
Some Facts About sugar.

The current weekly circular Of Willett
& Gray. on the subject of sugar produc-
ton, importation, and duties, is an ex-
hibit that is nothing less than startling.
BY this circular it appears that for the
year 1901 the total consumption of SUI
gar in the United States will amount in
round figures to two million three hun
dred and sixty thousand tons. OF this,
Louisiana will produce three hundred
and fifty thousand tons; the sugar beet
Industry Of the country one hundred
and fifty thousand; Hawaii, three hun
dred and fifty thousand, and Porto
Rico, one hundred and fifty thousand,
making in the aggregate one million
tons produced in American territory.
and leaving one million three hundred
and sixty thousand tons TO be imported.
The duty upon the importations, av-
eraged at thirty-six dollars a ton,
amounts TO a trifle less than forty
nine million dollars, which is collected
by the Government and covered into the
Treasury. This is forty-nine million
dollars directly added TO the price of
the sugar imported; but the burden
The sugar produced within our own do
main IL advanced in price Just the same
as is that which is imported from for
eign countries, for IL must all be sold
at the same rates in the American mar
ket. AS this sugar amounts to a mil
lion tons, there is added to its cost the
sum of thirty-six million dollars, maxi
ing nearly eighty-five millions or dol
lars which the American consumers
must pay above what would be the le-
gitimate cost without the duties. The
circular referred~to stops at this point,
but to make the statement complete
another step should have been taken.
1t must be remembered that the SUI
gar imported is sold at profit. This
profit is figured on the total cost,
which includes the sums paid IN iuties.
For example. Willett & Gray show that
the duty on Cuban sugar of certain
grade IS eighty-six per cent There
fore, sugar valued at thousand dollars
in Cuba would represent an investment
of eighteen hundred and sixty dollars
after the duty was paid at New York,
saying nothing of the freight. So the
American consumer not only pays the
duty. but he pays the importer a profit
on the sum advanced in payment of the
duty. As before stated, these additions
to the cost apply to the American prod
uct also, because IL is all sold at the
same price. If we were to estimate that
as a result Of the duty the cost of sugar
TO the consuming public in the United
States is increased a round one hundred
million dollars, we probably would be
well within the limit.
If it be urged that the Government
needs the revenue, a twO-fold answer
at once suggests itself: First. the Gov
ernment does not need the revenue from
this source, as the regular monthly sur
plus conclusively proves; secondly, un-
der the system now in vogue, the peo-
pie have 10 pay hundred millions more
for their sugar in order that the Gov
ernment may collect forty-nine mil
lions.
The case of sugar has always pre-
sented one Of the most glaring abuses
Of the protective policy. The avowed
purpose Of protection is to develop
home industry. SO far as sugar is con-
cerned, this purpose has utterly failed
Protection has added but little to the
product within the United States
proper. The bulk Of the Increase has
been from the annexation of sugar pro-
ducing islands. Consumption is prob
ably increasing more rapidly than pro-
duction is within the older portions of
our territory. The people are s!.1pIy
81
lion dollars annually for the benefit of
the Sugar Trust. a few planters in
Louisiana. and those who wish to ex-
pertinent in the cultivation of sugar
beets. These are the interests which,
for the sake Of their own unrighteous