New-York tribune., 1902-01-14
CUBA AND VARIOUS TRUSTS"

1t would have been pleasanter TO discuss the
question Of reciprocity with Cuba, and to dis
pose of 1t, strictly according to it's own merits
without dragging into 1t the really irrelevant
side issue of the effect thereof upon certain
trusts" But that was not TO be. At the outset
the cry was raised that any concession to
Cuban sugar would add TO the profits of the
Sugar Trust, and that cry has been worked to
hoarseness down to the present moment Real
ly. it has nothing TO do with the case There
is, 10 begin with, no convincing evidence that
II is true. But even IL II is, It would be an
extraordinary thing to say that should not
deal justly with Cuba because we might thereby
enable somebody to make more money. Ma
tional honor is not thus to be measured by mar
ket prices or by the rate of corporate dividends
Nor are the industrial and commercial interests
of the whole nation to be impaired or hampered
for fear that some one man or firm or trust"
will do what all are aiming to do. If the pro-
posed measure of reciprocity with Cuba threat
ened ruin to any important domestic industry 1t
might be well to pause and consider whether
the benefit could not be conferred upon Cuba in
some other way. But there is no pretence of
such menace. The industry which will be-ac-
cording to its own protestations-most affected
has declared its superiority to tariff issues and
its independence OF protection. SO its objection
10 reciprocity must be, not that it will mean
ruin for it, but that It may mean profit for some
one elsei
Now, we are not championing the Sugar
Trust" No one who has read this paper for
the last dozen years will suspect us Of that
Neither are we attacking the beet sugar organ
ization, for which, On the contrary, we wish
nothing but prosperity-the prosperity its lead
ers have so confidently predicted for it regard
less of nrOtpptiOO or froa
going to determine which of them presents the
more marked characteristics Of trust" or
which is the more earnestly seeking to influence
legislation for its good. Those matters are
as we have: said, irrelevant side issues OF
course, the farmers and others engaged in the
beet sugar industry are to be considered, and
so are the thousands of employees of the Sugar
Trust" The latter are probably as much en-
titled to protection as the former If it be said
that the latter do not need protection, we have
the word of the heads of the beet sugar in
dustry that the former do not need it. There
is. then, good ground for all this clamor
about trusts and about the danger that some
body will make something. The object of pro-
lection and Of reciprocity is to enable somebody
and everybody to make something And this
country is not going to abandon its traditional
policy just for fear that it will accomplish it's
object. 1t is surely not going to sacrifice it's
own interests and deny the demands of honor
and morality for fear that somebody will make
larger profits
If there be any trust which should be taken
into consideration in this matter It is the
gigantic alien trust" Of bounty aided European
sugar, which controls the market-our own
market-and dictates prices The price of sugar
in New-York is fixed at Hamburg by a State
aided industry built upon the unstable founda-
ton of politics and likely at any time to undergo
a radical change A powerful movement is now
afoot, with prospects of success thus to change
it by abolishing the bounty system. The mo-
ment that is done Hamburg will raise the price
of sugar 20 or 80 per cent, and we shall be pow
erless 10 help ourseves-under existing condi-
tions. The only way in which this country can
protect itself against such changes is by de-
veloping its own sugar supply. That cannot be
done on our own United States soil for many
years to come, If ever. 1t probably can be done
IN the course of the next decade, or sooner, If
we bring the Cuban supply under our control
through reciprocity. And for many years there
AFTER If not for all time, there will be ample
room, at an ample profit, in our own market for
the Cuban and for the United States supply to-
getber.
The question is not, then, whether we shall