Arizona republican., 1901-11-11
An Important Question for
 Reciprocity Convention
A Restrictive Policy That Greatly Retards the Islands Prosperity. The Present Tariff Is Nearly Prohibitive.

the island. The subject is receiving a great deal of attention at present from domestic cigar and tobacco interests. who are making a careful study of con citions both here and in Cuba-of the production in this country and in the island, as well as the imports and con sumption in the United States-so as to be thoroughly prepared for the con- | troversy at the convention and at the
 next session of congress. A man who
 is in authority on this subject and rep ! resents some of the largest tobacco in- ! terests of this country said today:
 'I have just returned from Washing
 ton. where I have been gathering some
 valuable data and statistics bearing on | the cigar duty question. The present duty on cigars of $4.5O per pound and
 9 per cent ad valorem is not objection
 able as a general tariff rate. but is far too high as applied to Cuban cigars. ! when it is proposed to make good the | pledges of the United States to aid in ! the restoration of commercial indus ! trial and agricultural prosperity of the ] island by an act of reciprocity. While. | generally speaking. the present tariff
 on cigars is nearly prohibitive. as less 1 than 1 per cent of the total consump-
 tion of cigars in the United States is imported. it should not be forgotten | that this eXorbitant rate is applied and l assessed upon the largest manufac- | tured product of the island (yvsth the sole exception of sugar. which is more ! an agricultural than d manufactured | producD, and that United States treas
 ury statistics show that of the total
 cigar imports, 1SS0-19OO inclusive, over | 95 per cent came direct from Cuba.
 while it is probable that of the remain | ing per cent at least one-haIf were Cuban cigars re-exported from other countries. because no cigars other than Cuban are valuable enough to permit i of importation to any extent into the | United States and pay the present high specific rate of s4.5O per pound. or even ! the specific rate of the tarins of 1872 2 nd 1SS3- which were each S2.5O per | pound. Since at this rate Of specific duty the same would average $50 per | 1.0O0. the duty alone would be more | than the average wholesale price here
 of five and ten cent cigars. so that | practically the great bulk of domestic | cigars under the latter rate would be
 amply protected. As this was shown | to be the case by actual imports when ! the duty was s2.50 per pound and 25 ! per cent ad valorem duty would affect l cigar imports. other than Cuban. espe-
 cially since the average valuation of | cheap German and other cigars is not over one-third (S20 per f.O0O) to one i sixth (S10 per 1.0o0) that of Cuban ci- gars in Havana.
 | From carefully compiled tables taken i from United States treasury statistics. ! it is quite evident that the present ra te 1 of duty on cigars has been a revenue 1 destroyer; that. while under the tariffs | of 1872 and 1883 (S2.5O per pound and p i per cent ad vaIorem) there had been
 a gradual increase in revenue from i'm ports, the immediate and pronounced
 effect of the large specific increase to | S4.50 per pound under the act of 1890
 was a loss in revenue Of S1.55L427. The
 revenue in 1890 was Si.O23, 295, while in
 1894 it was only s2.471, ,S6S.
 | Tt is true that the cigar imports of
 1s90 like the imports of wrapper leaf | in that year. were abnormaIly large in | anticipation Of hea-y increase in
 duty under pending legislation; that | the shrinkage in demand because of
 this high rate of duty was permanent. ! however. is evidenced by the fact that
 the total cigar duties collected in 1899
 under the present tariff were only S2,- I 234.232. or a decrease of over A per 'cent. while the imports decreased over | 6S per cent.
 In view of these facts. it seems un-
 deniable that a continuance of this re- strictive policy with regard to one of
 the chief products of Cuba Is not only | totally incompatible with any policy of l rehabilitating the islands prosperity,
 but is suicidal and destructive from the | standpoint of revenue. Every econo- | mist principle of wise legislation for | revenue purposes, every pledge of aid | in rehabilitating the island seems to de l mand a prompt and radical reduction ! in the duties on Cuban cigars. This | can be done, too, without any percep- l in nit1r- fn in fry , manufacturing agricultural; for. as | already stated, the total cigar imports ! are not now per cent of the consump- l ton, and in 1890 were 302, ,S44 pounds
 less than 1 per cent of the total tax
 paid output of 1899. so that it appears
 that at no time since the war tariff of
 1861 has the importation exceeded
 per cent of consumption. With the
 abolition of the ad valorem duty and
 a return to the specific rate of $2.50 per
 pound it is not probable that the i'm
 ports of cigars from all countries would
 amount to per cent of the consump-
 ton in the United States. But if they
 did, the result would show large in-
 crease in revenue from that source and
 on that ground alone would perhaps
 justify a reduction in the rate on Gu
 ban cigars.
 "Oficial statistics show that in the eleven years. 1S90-190O inclusive, the
 total imports of cigars from all coun-
 tries exceeded those from Cuba alone cnly 36S.e71 pounds. or only an average ] of s. .515, 6-11 pounds per year, and as this yearly average is the nearest ap-
 proach of any one year in the eleven ; to that of 1890 under the 'SS tariff of S2.5O per pound and 9 per cent ad va , lorem, it shows that even under the l, latter rate it was quite as nearly pro- hibitive on all but Cuban cigars as un-