Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1907-03-07
PHILIPPINE TARIFF
SUGAR TRUST DICTATES SEIZED.
ULE ON ITS MONOPOLY.
Unfair Treatment of the wards
of this Great Nation, who
Should be Aided in thc Develop
ment of Their Country instead of
Exploited.

The Bureau of Statistics has just is
sued bulletin on sugar production, con.
sumption and importation which pre-
sents some interesting figures on the
sources OF supply on which we are de-
pendent. 1t will be remembered how
the sugar trust and its faithful band Of
standpatters have fought against admis-
sion of Philippine sugar. To listen to
the arguments which they set forth
against removing the duty on sugar from
our new island dependencies, one could
easily imagine that ruin irrelrievable
and awful would ensue as soon as the
law became effective. The extent to
which Philippine competition might
affect US is shown by statistics. With
consumption in 1906 OF 6,4l5,3S9 ,l20
pounds, the United States produced but
1904, ,6o7 1850 pounds. The remaining
four-fifths came, as to volume in the or.
der named, from Cuba, Hawaii, Porto
Rico, Java, Germany, South America,
West Indies, Belgium, Philippines, Aus.
tria Hungary and Mexico. The awful
menace of the Philippine sugar to the
industry in this country is clearly shown
in imports from that country of 26,2S3,
929 pounds or one-two hundred and for
ty-fifth of the total amount consumed in
the United States. Cuba lying close at
hand nd vrfth har IND, a.
tered for centuries, supplied nearly one
third OF the sugar we consumed last year !;
but lava lying across the Pacific, no
nearer than the Philippines, sold us 425,
372,363 pounds, or about 20 times as
much as we received from the islands
which we forced to accept our sovereign
ty.
The subsidy seekers are shrieking be-
cause we do not increase our trade with
South America, and yet that country
last year supplied US with seven times
az much sugar as we received fiom the
Philippines. We are asked to spend
millions on ship subsidy for the alleg-
ed purpose OF increasing trade with a
foreign country, while we shamefully
neglect one of our own dependencies,
whose growth we have stunted by an
ubiquitous and arbitrary tariff law which
the principal sufferers had no voice in
making. OF course this opposition to
the admission of free sugar from the
Philippines comes almost exclusively
from the sugar trust, but to become
most effective with the people, it as
sumes varied forms. For example, the
beet-sugar interests in this country
make fearful protest against ruinaton OF
their infant industry by free sugar from
the Philippines.
The drastic effect OF this competition
can be understood by the official figures
which show that OF the total sugar con-
sumption of the United States last year
only a scant tenth was beet sugar. As
usual in protest against removal of duty
the rights of the consumer are not con-
sidered, and in this case the figures
show that the consumers right to cheap
sugar is in jeopardy il we persist in Civ
ing preference to the home product.
Consumption is outstripping production
so rapidly that while our production of
sugar last year was but 656,000,O0O
pounds greater than in 1896, the con-
sumption last year was 2024, 100000
pounds greater than in 1896. In other
words, our dependence on other countries
for sugar is steadily increasing.
1t must, OF course, be pleasing to the
struggling Filipino to observe that, while
our flag flies over his former possessions
we are not inclined to aid him in devel-
oping the resources OF the land. We
forced our civilization on him, and, de-
spite his protests, are now showing him
that that civilization carries with it
demand for high tribute to the American
sugar trnst. The spectacle is humiiat-
ing for the people OF our own country,
who still believe in the old doctrine OF
fair play and equal rights, and it is not
likely to infuse into the hearts OF the
Filipnos any great amount OF reverence
for the flag that floats over their rich
but undeveloped land.-Oregonian.