The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-06-26

be lost sight of, Gentlemen, is that,
Notwithstanding all that may be said
to the contrary, the prices at present
ruling for Coffee are In some cases
scarcely remunerative, while In most
others, they just about cover the ex-
penses of cultivation, etc, and this.
only because the unfortunate condi-
tons of our laborers compel them to
be satisfied with wages that barely al
low them to meet their most pressing
needs, being at present about one-half
of those earned when Coffee was sold
at profitable rates.
And even If IL were necessary and I'M
avodable to do away with the cultiva-
ton of Coffee altogether, because of
the contingencies which all farming
and Industrial undertakings are sub
ject to, the protection herein petition
ed for. would be none the less just and
proper, during the period of transition
which must naturally elapse before the
present area of Coffee culture could be
substituted for others that might prove
more advantageous.
If in view of such a possibility, you
bear in mind that approximately two
thirds of the population of Porto Ricor
scattered in the small towns and
mountains of the interior, live by the
cultivation harvesting, and prepara-
ton for market of the Coffee berry, you
will readily see the great evils thai
would ensue to the community by the
abandoning of said cultivation were II
unfortunately to take place.
We refrain from pointing out those
evils, for we have the hope, in fact
the firm conviction, that the repug
nant spectacle of want and wretched-
ness will not take a permanent hold on
this island basing our conviction and
trust, in the right it has to protection
for its Coffee, as well as for its other
products, which are the products, In
fact, of American soil; and we further
place our faith IN the Economic policy
of the Nation. ;,
To make evident such right to protec-
ton, it will not be necessary, to emu
merate all the products which at home
have been able to develop and prosper
only by the aid of protective legisla-
ton: but we will cite as applicable to
the special case of our Coffee. three or
those products which stand out more
prominently among the protected ones.
They are in the order of their im-
portance: Sugar, Rice, and Wine
SUGAR.
In 1872 the sugar production of the
State of Louisiana was 66193 tons; ape
in 1890, 1t had reached 1868 tons
The consumption of sugar in the Unit
ed States for the years above mention
ed was respectively, 733,923 and 1.476.-
377 tons.
Protective laws of varying nature.
which implied at times a Bounty of
cents per pound have been successive
LIP enacted, one after another, in favor
of sugar, until 1897 when the Dingley
Bin became law. This Law without
hesitation heavily taxed a most i'm
portant article of consumption to save
"A domestic product comparatively in
significant then, for 1t scarcely reach
ed Is p. c. of the consumption OF the
country
If in the enactment of Tariff Law.
the duty to be imposed upon a certain
article Is usually determined by con-
of an Economic as well as
of social nature, ii appears to us.
that Congress was not guided in fixing
the duty on sugar by the first of such
because there were then,
as there are now, many other articles
which, If taxed, could have supplied
the Treasury with the revenues at
present derived from sugar We take
that the controlling considerations In
this case We're not of social nature
either, as the argument seems to he
rather against the imposition of a duty
upon an article of prime necessity like
sugar the consumption of which
should be fostered because of its trans
as a food product.
No obvious reason, then. from an
Economic standpoint can be adduced
to justify the exorbitant duty of l.
95-1OO of cent per pound on refined
sugar, save the spirit of that TariH,
and, as a consequence. the deliberate
purpose of protecting certain sec
ton. assuring to one of it's products
Tariff advantages tending to foster it's
development, with the result that the