The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-01-28
SUGAR


gar free. The Chronicle in it's latest
editorial says:
The protection of sugar has become
q great American industry. as well en-
titled to protection from foreign COM
petition as any other industry in the
land. Our consumption of sugar during
1901, as announced by Willett & Gray.
was 1872. 216 tons, of which we produc-
ed S20.4 tons. This, to be sure, is but
little more than one-third of our con-
sumption, but the production of even
that amount represents an enormous
outlay of American capital and large
employment of American labor. If per-
mitted, we shall soon produce all our
sugar.
There is disposition among the free
trade journals to belittle our sugar pro-
duction by chasing all sugar not pro-
duced on the mainland as imported"
1t is true that the Supreme Court says
that it is not imported but domestic"
but free traders do not permit such a
thing as Supreme Court decision to
affect their statements. Our domestic
production, so far as these figures show
1t, was made up as follows:
From the mainland ..... ..439, 9s6 tons
..oU
From Porto Rico .......... 66,279 tons
From the Philippines ....... 5,1Oe tons
These figures, however, by no means
do justice to the Philippines, which pro-
duce a large quantity of sugar. In 1897,
the latest year for which figures are
available, the Philippines exported 203,-
1S1 tons of sugar. The proposition of
the sugar trust and the renegade
rT.s,.,
plantations is that we shall compel our
Filipino fellow-citiZens whom they
would call subjects-to continue to ex-
port their product to competitive mar
kets, where their sugar will bring only
21a cents per pound. in order that the
Cubans may get the benefit of the high
err prices of the American market.
Nothing more abominabie was ever
proposed by the most ruthless conquer
or. 1t would be treating the Philippines
as England for centuries treated Ire
land, and would result, as in that case,
in deep-seated, irremovable, venomous
and justified national hate. 1t is treat
Ing the Filipinos as Spain never treat
ed them. Spain plundered the Filipinos.
it is true, but she did permit them to
sell in her markets. 1t is said that we
have deprived Cuba of her old markets.
If SO, we did 1t at her own importunate
request. But have we not also depriv-
ed the Filipinos Of the same markets?
And have we not done so not only
without being asked, but against the
most violent opposition of the people?
If we are under any obligation to the
Cubans-as we are Motive are under
a, thousandfold greater obligations to
provide the Filipinos with commercial
outlets. Shall the cutlery of foreigners
close by our shores deafen US to plead
ings of our own people across the Pa
cifc? We may say that we do not like
the Filipinos as fel1oW-citizens. If so,
why on earth did we not let them
alone? They never asked US to occupy
their country. We may boast of the
'sr1ucat ton" which we are giving them,
but it will only enable them to realize
more keenly the value of the markets
which we deny them.
This movement to favor Cuban for
eigners at the expense of our own peo-
pie of the mainland and the islands is
promoted by the money of several in
terests which desire profit without the
risk of production. Chief among them
are the refining trust and the import
and export traders of Atlantic cities,
helped by some selfish manufacturers
who desire profit at the expense of oth-
er producers. Its only chance of Sue
cess lies in the insensate folly of our
sugar producers of the mainland who
oppose their island fellow-citizens as
strongly as they oppose Cuban foreign
ers. BY that course they disgust fair
minded men and endanger their own
cause. When we see such foolishness
we may justly wonder why men are
called reasoning beings.
The Los Angeles Times says: One
of the apparently convincing argu-
ments put forth by the sugar trust,
through its inspired organs or other
wise. is a quotation from a statement
made by Mr.. Oxnard several years ago.
when he was engaged in interesting
capital in the beet sugar business. In
the beet sugar industry of the United
States had nothing to fear--was indie
pendent-of foreign competition.
This statement which the sugar trust
has been assiduously circulating
throughout the country. does, 1t is true,
on the face of it, look like an adnis-
sion that the beet sugar industry does
not need the protection of a tariff.
This, but for one small but exceeding
ly important point, which the writers
of the sugar trust carefully overlook.
namely, that when Mr.. Oxnard made
that statement the American beet SUI
gar was enjoying a bounty of
cents pound, granted under the NC
Kinley bill. This bounty was 10 have
lasted for fifteen years, but was cut
short when other policies held sway at
This effectually knocks
out the only argument of any weight
that has been advanced by the sugar
trust in favor of the admission of free
raw sugar from Cuba, or elsewhere.
The arguments put forth by this
overgrown trust are. indeed, sophis-
tries of the most shallow and trans
parent kind The suddenly developed
cvy,Da+bv for the poor Cubdns on the