New-York tribune., 1901-03-06
ENGLAND NAY PUT DUTY on SUGAR
STEP IN PROTECTION BELIEVED TO BE RE-
SOLVED ON-sTATEIENT BY JAMES REID

London March 5.-"The Chancellor of the
Exchequer." said prominent member of the
House of Commons to a representative of The
Associated Press tonight will probably intro
duce duty on sugar in the forthcoming budget.
and will. perhaps, also add a countervang
duty"
A member of the ministry said: Il only
say that this serious departure from England's
historic principles of free trade is under discus
sion, as the provisions of the budget re-
ligiously kept secret until announced in the
House of Commons. However, if sugar is not
taken off the free list there will be large
ber of disappointed Conservatives; on the other
hand, the Introduction of such a motion will
meet with the most fierce opposition upon the
part of the Liberals and all old time champions
of free trade. The movement in favor of such
a step is due, first, to the almost utter decay
of England's refining industry; second. to the
careful study of the success of American sugar
under the present system. and. third. to the
dire necessity Of the government TO raise funds
by other means than increasing the already
enormous direct taxation. For some time in
fuentiaI committee of the House of Commons
has been dealing with the subject. After the
recent controversy between Russia and the
United States over sugar this committee decided
to make the matter one of debate in the House
Of Commons on March f. James Reid. member
of the House of Commons from Greenock, the
centre of the sugar refining industry, was ap-
pointed spokesman but at the last moment Mr..
Balfour was obliged TO cancel his consent owing
to the necessity of devoting all the House s
time to the debate supplies
James Reid in an interview with repre-
sentative OF The Associated Press. said:
Yes. A tax on sugar is practically protec-
tOn, but l see way out Of it, Indeed, the re-
finers of my constituency will not be satisfied
with mere import duty. arguing that this will
leave them little better off than before. what
we hope to get, though l refiner myself, Is
a countervailing duty, which will nulltfy the
bOunties afforded by France, Germany ana
Belgium. Twenty-Five years ago there were
fourteen prosperous retneries in Greenock- NOW
there are only four Formerly the proprietors
We're wealthy. Now they are reduced to medi-
ocre circumstances. / do not think a tax or
cOuntervaiIing duty will seriously affect Ameri-
sugars Of the Continent, which. thanks 10 the
subsidy. underser anything produced here.
The West Indian people are also seriously az
fected. and are giving us the full weight OF their
influence. The chief opposition comes from the
English cOnfectiOners and other users OF cheap
sugars. But do not think the government will
allow the refining industry TO die out for the
sake of one particular branch of the trade.
In case the United States government should
subsidize American ships, | think their sugar
cargoes would he dangerously near coming
under our proposed Countervaling duty. We are
far from deSirOuS of embracing the whole Amer
lean policy Of protection but You have certainly
taught us a lesson regarding sugar, and so long
the Continent insists upon subS1d1Zlng sugar
to ruin industries are bound TO retaliate.
Evidently the government is preparing the
way for such a departure serious editorial
in to-day's Times" discussing the advisability
of placing duty on sugar. corn and agricultural
produce, in view of the fact that taxation must
be doubled during the next three years. says:
The people tired of the theoretical objec-
tons 10 certain import duties which existed in
the golden days of Mr.. C;ladStOne's free trade.
but whether the government. in spite of their
enormous majority. will be able to break down.
regards sugar alone, the principles of
free trade is a matter upon which their own
supporters are inclined TO be doubtful