The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-12-12

after a reasonable period. Inc Fedl pul-
pose of protection is 10 stimulate produc-
ton so that in a reasonable time the out
put Will supply the home market.
In the same connection the writer says
I'VE all know that sugar went up after
the passage Of the Dingley law" his as
sumption being that the sugar duty IS
lower in the Dingley tariff than in the
one which preceded it, AS a matter OF
fact, the duty on raw sugar is little
higher under the Dingley law than 1t was
under the German law. on sugar or any
other article Of which the country pro-
duces but a small part of the quantity con-
sumed the duty is added to the import
price and is paid by the consumer. To-day
the duty on sugar is the greatest pro-
Queer Of revenue in the tariff law. With
the exception Of three years under the
Mckinley tariff law, when raw sugar was
on the free list and a high bounty was
paid on home-rased sugar, raw sugar
has always paid a very high duty, rang
ing from 80 TO 100 per cent. In all these
years that high duty has not stimulated
sugar production at home to any extent.
Very little if any more cane sugar is pro-
duced now than in 1856. The beet sugar
industry has been agitated since 1915, when
two or three Eastern States offered pre-
miums to encourage it. In Germany and
France, where labor is cheap and women
work in the fields, the industry has been
stimulated both by prohibitory duties and
bounties 1t does not seem 10 get hold in
this country. Twelve years ago the Agri-
cultural Department took it in hand. The
result last year was, as our correspondent
says, 100000 pounds. or 1900 tons of
sugar-or about as much sugar as Indiana
consumed during 1900 The Agricultural
Department has devoted more attention to
the beet-sugar industry than to any one
special feature.
At the present time it is not necessary
to discuss the proposition to put sugar on
the free list, even if the correspondent de-
clares that the Journal is for letting in
Cubas sugar free Of duty. The Journal
has not declared in favor of reduction
of the general duty on sugar. We cannot
get along without the sugar revenue and
/ it is desirable that the beet sugar expert
ment should have more time. What the
Journal proposes, and what the President
favored in his message, is that reciprocal
treaty be made with Cuba so that the duty
/ be reduced on raw sugars mot one-fourth
/ of the quantity consumed u or 20 per cent.
/ 1t could not affect the beet-sugar industry.
/ whose production in any year has not been
/ equal 10 the increased consumption from
year TO year. What the Journal has said
of the yield of beets to the acre and the
/ quantity required to make ton of refined
sugar is the statement of the expert who
made the calculations for the sugar tariff
and whose professional duties led him to
be accurate in estimates regarding sugar
! The correspondent who is so hasty to as
sail the Journal should have been careful
! TO make his own statements harmonic
He declares that the Journal is wrong
when it says, on the statement Of an eX.
| pert that three men are needed TO cult.
vate an acre of beets, but. when speaking
of the industry in Michigan, he says that
10000 acres give employment to 10000 men
which is just three men to an acre. Hi:
general assumption to the effect that the
lower tariff on iron and steel has caused
the prices to advance is simply absurd. a
man who assumes to give information
should know that there has been no ma
terial change in the duty on iron and stee
since the enactment of the Mckinley law
The present duties are essentially the same
as those of the Democratic German tariff