The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-08-31

der consideration in the House, every Democrat
voting with him TO pr wide for taking eff the
tariff whenever 1t afforded shelter to the trusts
! while roShinG the American consumer. But the
| republicans were in the majority. and tney de-
J feeted the righteous amendment, fatty refusing
TO legislate against the trusts. for Their couatry
men.
Why the Bill Was PigeonhoIed.
This Cuban reciprocity bill passed the House
the 18th Of April. But by the solid Democratic
vote and the votes of a few Republicans. and
against the votes Of the great majority of the
Republicans, the bill was amended in i'm
portant particular. II then went TO the Senate,
and there Ii is, in a pgeonhOie.
/ Why did not the Senate pass the bill? Why
did not the Senate defeat the bill? It not
passed because the Sugar Trust opposed its
passage; it was not killed in the open because
the election was approaching. and 1t would not
be polite show opposition too clearly. The
Republicans pigeonholed the bill while the Dem
ocrats were, and are, for its passage.
We may easily understand why the Republican
advocates OF Cuban reciprocity, from the Presi-
dent down, were unwilling to suffer the amended
bill to become a law, though amended 1t Is
much better bill, both for the Cubans and for the
mass Of the American people, than it was origi
nal!y. Let us look into the sugar schedule of the
Dinsley law for the explanation.
Under the Dlngley law the tariff upon dark
colored sugar ranges from IS cents per 100
pounds Of sugar 15 per cent pure. 10 81 .S2ls per
100 pounds sugar of 100 per cent purity, the
rate rising 31a cents per 100 pounds for each
additional degree in purity. Degrees Of ''pur-
ity'' are merely percentages OF saccharine mat
ter. sugar 70 per cent pure containing - per
cent saccharne matter. sugar 100 per cent pure
containing 100 per cent OF saccharine matter.
Where the Sugar Trust Comes In.
The Dingley tariff rate upon the lisht-colored
sugars is 81 .s5 per 100 pounds without reference
TO the purity of the article. This additional
l2i% cents between the highest rate for dark
co!ored sugar and the uniform rate upon the
lsht-colored sugars is called the 'diferentiar
duty. and is for the benefit of the Sugar Tr7,st
and for nothing else.
As matter of fact. no sugar is absolutely
pure. and so none grades 100 per cent in purity
or in the saccharfne matter contained and none
OF the dark-colored sugars are taxed as much
as sls2ls upon 100 pounds. Ninety-six or ninetl-
sefen per cent Is about high as most of the
imported dark sugars grade. The duty ,pon es
per cent dark-colored sugar ia 81 seJs for 100
pounds. and the duty upon the 81 per cent grade
is H-72. So, 1t Will be seen, the "direrentiaT'
duty for the Sugar Trust is 26tz cents per 1cO
pounds upon S6-per-cent sugar and - cents
upon the S1-per-cent grade.
By the classification Of the Dingley law the
extra dinerential. Sugar-Trrst. duty is placed
upon all refined sugar. and all sugar above
No 16 Dutch standard n color
Now. all light yellowish sugar is above NO
JIG Dutch standard in color This sugar is of a
quality 10 go into general use without being
further refined, SO to become what Is tech
nically called refined sugsr. But under the
existing law It is subject the extra differen-
tal or sugar-trust duty. and in consequence none
is imported except through the Sugar Trust.
Why the Amendment Was Opposed.
Now for the amendment TO the Cuban reciproci-
ty bill. account Of which the President and bfu
friends lost their affection for it. This amend |
ment takes off the Sugar Trust differentIal duty
upon both refined sugar and sugar above No is
Dutch standard in color.'' subjecting such sugars
no matter where they come from to the highest
duty upon the dark-colored sugars.
The Cutans do not produce refined" sugar
but they do produce. in great abundance and Of
excellent quality. ght-coIored wholesome palata
Ia IEo bnT T.t4A
cr.'' But for the differential duty upon this |
grade OF sugar-a duty created and maintained
for the benefit Of the Sugar Trust-this light
colored. high-grade Cuban sugar would come into |
our markets without passing through the hands
OF the Sugar Trust. to the mutual advantage OF
the Cuban producer and the American consumer
What do you think of the sincerity OF thosa
who prate about their great desire for reciprocity
with Cuba while they oppose do not lift a |
finger to help to pass a bill which has been |
amended TO be worth more, by reason OF |
the amendment both Cuban and American
and objectionable to these friends OF Cuban reci
procity only because # is Objectionable to the |
Sugar Trust?
As for those who oppose this bill because they |
oppose all reduction in the tariff. they at least
have the merit OF candor. But when tariff dutv |
Is SO high that it enables trust TO exact from |
the American consumer more than II demands |
OF the foreigner. to whom 1t ships its wares !
beyond the seas. what excuse there be for !
refusing or neslecting to remove or at least |
reduce that tariff duty And yet, in numerous |
ani fo- years. the Republican party |
has been, and It is now, guilty of such refusal |
and such neglect.
What have the trusts to fear from party dom
mated and led as the Republican party is! Talk /
Is very cheap. especially when contradicted by
acts.
Is the President Sinceref
AS for the plea Of the beet sugar industry
hat any reduction Of the tariff would be dead
y. X is well to keep in mind the fact that In
addition to the tariff duties upon sugar aIre,dv
mentioned there is another. denoninated the
countervailing'' duty, providing that upon all
'ugara imported from countries paying a bounty |
here shall be added TO our regular tariff duty
Ipon such sugar sum equal 10 the amount OF !
such bounty.
And It is well enough to note also the fact thar
'ur present tarin duty upon all imported sugars
amounts to more than their value: that is. more
han doubles their cost in this country. With the
per cent reduction OF the Cuban reciprocity
Ill. the remaining duty would be almost IL not
uite equal to the original value of the sugar
imported.
II the President really wishes to try what can
e done to curb the trusts. let him have those
Who violate the existing antitrust law prose-
uted for the crimes committed.
Don't you wonder why none of the Beef Trust !
TENDERS prosecuted as criminals? Not a |
olitary prosecution, Why?
And II the President and his party friends are I
ow really eager TO do something against the
rusts. after refusing often and so long. why
viii they not deny the trusts the use Of the
iails in prosecuting their OF oppression?
Vhy will they not conascate trust goods in inter-
ermits and demands it? Why? The Democrats
ave urged these and other simple but efficient
,nedies. but the Republicans would have none :
them
The Republican party is too thoroughly de-
endent upon the trusts to incur the i'll will I
I their managers. at least long the people 7
Jay be soothed with words. words. :
| .