Evening star., 1902-01-23
CUBAN CONCESSIONS
The Chief Opponent Against Reduc-
tion on Sugar,
HENRY OINARD, And His ARGUMENT
Same Opposition as in Case of
Hawaii and Porto Rico.
PROTECTION NOT JUSTIFIED


The question arises. of course, in connec-
tion with the pending proposition to grant
tariff concessions to Cuba
Everybody remembers President McKin-
ley's assertion of the plain duty of Con-
gress to grant tariff relief to Porto Rico.
1t is also recalled how the little coterie of
beet sugar growers and tobacco producers
of the country swooped down on the ways
and means committee and swung that body
into line for a bill imposing tariff restric-
tions upon Porto Rico, even after free
trade bill had been prepared.
An identical sentiment has been uttered
by President Roosevelt in respect to Cuba,
the present ward of the nation, whose
guardianship was acquired simultaneously
with Porto Ricos adoption.
we are bound by every consideration of
honor and eXpediency to pass commercial
measures in the interest of her (Cubasl
material welfare" wrote President Roose-
Welt in his first message to Congress. The
ways and means committee is now consid-
ering whether this recommendation shall
be carried out. 1t is by no means certain
that the President will be supported. The
protect1on1sts are confidently claiming that
the committee is leaning their way and
will refuse to grant the tariff concessions
implored by the Cubans.
OxnaId the Chief Objector
The same influences are back of the pres
ent opposition TO the proposed relief for
Cuba and practically the same group of
people who opposed Porto Rico are now
opposing Cuba The principal worker
against Cuban concessions is Mr.. Henry
i. OXnard of the American Beet Sugar
Company This corporation is not CON-
founded with the American Sugar Refining
Association, commonly called the sugar
trust. Mr.. Oxnard's company retines
he lt r.
fines raw sugar The Monthly Quotation
Guide, published in Wall street, gives these
figures of Mr., Oxnards company:
incorporated in New jersey. 1899. Cap
1talization. authorized: 600 common
stock So,eoo,eo9 six-per cent preferred
stock
Location of plants. Grand Island. Nor
folk, Neor; Rocky Ford, Colo; Chino and
Oxnard, Cal Financial office. 80 Nassau
street, New York, and 125 California
street, San Francisco, Cal. New Jersey
agent. Corporation Trust Company of New
Jersey. 60 Grand street. Jersey City Trans
fer agent, Corporation Trust Company 135
broadway, New York. Registrar. Morton
Trust Company. Annual meeting, first
Tuesday in April.
Dividends. liz per cent. paid regularly,
quarterly, January, April. July and Oc-
tober, on preferred from October, 1899
Extract from certificate of incorpora-
tion: The holders of the preferred stock
shall be entitled in each fiscal year from
and after July, 1899, to receive non-curnu-
lative dividends at such rate not exceeding
q per cent per annum pay quarterly, as the
net profits of the company shall suffice TO
pay.
Officers: Henry T. Oxnard president;
Jas G. Oxnard, Robert Oxnard. vice pres
idents; John E. Tucker, treasurer; J. G.
Hamilton, secretary; Geo. w. Geddings
assistant secretary.
Directors: W. Bayard Cutting. chair
man; r. Fulton Cutting, Henry T. Oxnard
James G. Oxnard, Dumont Clark, George
nctl col hxnflx 1r,-,r,
man Hass, Jas G. Hamilton Dennistoun
Wood, Robert Oxnard.'
His Reinforcements,
Mr.. Oxnard is reinforced by an organiza-
tion of beet sugar refiners of Michigan.
representing thirteen factories, and by the
cane sugar planters of louisiana The
American Cigar Leaf Tobacco Association
has also Joined the ranks of the opponents
OF Cuban concessions.
One of the stock arguments of those who
are fighting the Cuban concessions is the
charge that the sugar trust will be the
principal beneficiary of the reduction and
the trust bug -a-boo is kept constantly
on parade They harp also the asser-
tion that the American consumer will NOT
be benefited
The other side reply that the proposed re-
lief Is not for the American consumer but
1or the cuban sugar growers. No one de-
MES that when Hawaiian sugar was admit
ted free of duty the price of sugar was
not lowered in this country, but il is also
true. II is claimed, that benefit was enioyed
by the Hawaiian producer.
Prospects Not Realized.
AT the hearing before the ways and
means committee yesterday the fact was
brought out that the glittering prospects
claimed for the beet sugar industry several
years ago have not been realized by actual
events. and it has been impossible to make
beet sugar all the time at the low price
estimated at the outset
The following comparison of the growth
OF the beet sugar industry with the con-
sumption of sugar is made in an editorial
today in the New York Tribune a stanch
protecuOnist newspaper:
In the same ten years preceding 1890
our imports of sugar averaged 3 461, ,tyT O13
pounds a year, with a general and natural
tendency toward increasing purchases.
Then the beet sugar industry was founded
under a bounty which gave il really more
protection than the tinplate industry en-
5oyed under the tariff. The promise was
made that in ten years time the beet sugar
Industry would be supplying our entire do
mestlc demand and exporting 600 Geo tons
a year Since that date, however the i'm
ports OF sugar have been steadily increasing
In the ten years 1s90-'93. they have aver
aged 3,6s3, ,459,6 pounds a year, or nearly
30 per cent more than in the preceding ten
years. So that at the time when, accord
Ing to the promises of the beet sugar men,
We were to be supplying all our own de-
tons year, we were actually importing
about 100000 tons a year, and the amount
Was steadily increasing.
The domestic product of beet sugar, un-
der at first high bounty and later pro-
tectiye tariff, increased from 2S 600 tons in
1880 to less than So GOO tons in 1900; rate
Of increase nothing like equal to the rate of
increase of consumption. So that instead
OF abolishing imports and supplying the
domestic demand the tinplate industry
has done, this highly protected beet sugar
industry permits, and, indeed, makes neces-
sary, the steady increase of imports of for
eign sugar. And this marked failure of
promise has been effected at a heavy cost
TO the American people
our consumption of sugar for the first
zen years Of this century will average
o'VooVu tons year and the duty Is Sl9 a
toh on crude and S33 a ton on refined sugar.
Al the former figure the cost to this conn
Try OF giving TO the beet sugar Industry q
protectlon which It declares IL does not
need Will In ten years amount to $50 600 :
Voo. or more than one-half Of our interest
bearing national debt!
Profession Not Justified.
There, then, is a failure of a protected
industry to Justify ita nfetection. 1t has