Republican news item. [volume] (Laport, Pa.) 1896-19??, 1905-06-15
INCREASED SUGAR BILL.
Cubnn Reciprocity Is Costing us
Sf5.OOO.0 u Year.


The Cuban experiment ought also to
demonstrate that our beet sugar indus
tries were not, as opponents of Cuban
reciprocity alleged, in imminent danger of
eNtinction.--New York Evening Post.
We suppose our contemporary, the
Eyening Post, is aware of the fact that
the beet sugar companies have not suf-
fered extinction, because the price of
sugar is much higher than it was be-
fore the Cuban reciprocity act We sup
pose our contemporary, the Evening
Posi-. Is aware of the fact that sugar is
much higher than ii was because there
is now no competition between the beet
sugar producers and the Havemeyer
sugar trust. We suppose our contem-
pogJry, the Evening Post, is aware OF
the fact that there is now no competi-
ti0u because the beet sugar producers,
threatened with extinction by the re-
duction of duty on Cuban sugar, were
induced to make an agreement with the
sugar trust for the control of the Amer
lean market and the raising of prices
TO consumers.
In the same edition from which we
haveN quoted the Evening Posts com
merc,al tables showed that the price of
sugar was G15 cents Il pound on April
/, 1868, as against 40 ON April 4, 1904,
ore year ago. This increase in price
over one year ago amounts to SO ton.
Tie sugar consumption of the United
States is about 100000 tons per an
num- The result of the Cuban reciproc-
its act, therefore, has been to increase
the sugar bill of American consumers
by mere than $75,0O0,000 a year
Our contemporary, the Evening Post,
was telling the American people be
fore the passage of the reciprocity act
that they Were groaning under a tar
iff tax of SS,000,O00 year. which was
TO be remitted by reason of this tax"
coming off the importatlons from Cuba
and going into the pockets of the con
sumers. Tariff duties of $s,000,000 are
q per capita tax of 40 cents a year.
But the Cuban reciprocity act not only
failed 10 take off this per capita tax of
10 cents year; it put the SS,000000 in
to the Golfers of the sugar trust and the
tobacco trust and it added S75,o00,000 a
year to the sugar bills of the American
people!
What the sugar trust was planning
with its recip ity act was an oppor-
tunity either to drive Its competitors,
the beet sugar producers, out of exist
ence or to compel those competitors
seeking self preservation to form
combine under which the American
people could be plucked through a
complete control of the market Natu-
rally tie beet sugar producers did not
choose to go out of existence. They ac-
cepted the alternative and made an
agreement with the sugar trust where
by the price to the consumer is ele-
waited and kept up. SO opulent
scheme is this that the sugar trust
agrees to buy the product of beet sugar
factories at a regulated price, just as
the gas trust buys the product of af-
filiated gas producers at an agreed
price, which permits all the producers
to make extortlonate profits, since the
helpless public must foot the bills.
The whole result of the Cuban reel
procity act then, so far as sugar is
concerned, is that there is no longer
competition TO protect the American
consumer He does not get the benefit
of the lowered taxes" on Cuban i'm
ports, and he does pay, the whole ma
ton of him, $40 100000 more year for
his sugar!-New York Press.