The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-12-30
MR.. BRUNER CRITICIZED.


Der issue of the Tea and Coffee Trade
Journal. makes a very strong and elo-
quent plea for a tariff on coffee. In
the beginning. he uses sugar, with its
protective tariff, as basis of his argu-
ment as TO why the same, or an equiv
alent tariff, should be placed on cof-
fee. It is by no means a settled fact
that the protection afforded the sugar
barons of American, who now use from
seven to nine figures to enumerate
their fortunes. that this is good thing
for the mass of American people. Is
it a fact that the South where all of
the sugar is raised and manufactured,
is practically benefited by this protec-
tive tariff? Is it not fact that with
the exception of a very few skilled
laborers and managers of refneries.
who receive fair salaries for their skill
ed labor, that this industry is handled
| by the cheapest labor TO be had in
this country? Is it a fact that the
actual producers are in any manner
recipients of the benefits of this enor-
NOUS tax imposed upon our people?
L do not believe that an investigation
of the conditions that exists here would
warrant any fair-minded man in plac-
ing himself on record as being in favor
of protective tariff on sugar, and
ii is also a fact easily susceptible of
demonstrat ton that this protective
tariff was secured at the hands OF
Congress by the richest and most pow
erful lobby that ever visited the halls
of Congress. And at this late date,
after many years trial of sugar tarifr,
I can see no good resulting from 1t to
the masses of the people. If we con-
| fine ourselves to class legislation, and
taxing of the many for the benefit of
the few, then the protective tariff is
good thing / have always contend
ed that America Should be for Amer
leans, and that in it's broadest sense,
not confined to the millionaire classes.
Mr.. Bruner also refers to the Dingley
| bill, which was passed in 1897. He is
correct when he says this is merely
manufacturers bill, and the great con-
suming public of the United States is
suffering today from the effects of this
! Ubiquitous bill. 1t has fostered and
protected the so-called infant indus
tries of the United States until they
have become enormous giants who
lopenly defy our laws. practically CON-
troll every legislature in the Union, and
render it absolutely impossible to pass
any bill in Congress not endorsed by
/ them. who ship goods into foreign mar
kets. and compete with the cheapest
labor in the world sell American man
ufactured goods in China at prices that
would bankrupt the cheapest Chinese
| labor and tax the people at home TO
carry on this campaign in foreign
| lands. Our government, with it's pro-
tective tariff, forces the taxpayers of
/ this country to support these giants in
! their conquest sof commerce. These
facts apply to protective tariH IN
general. Now we'll apply ourselves to
the particular tariff asked for by Mr..
Bruner. In the first place, it would not
/ appear to be good business policy for
eighty or ninety million people, who
do not produce a single pound of coffee,
to place a tariff upon it. 1t is true
that it is entirely within the range OF
possibility. for some of our tropical
]
/ according to Mr.. Burners own state
ment in regard to the production OF
| coffee in the Hawaii Islands, that they
have been growing coffee since 1872
| and that, too, great portion or the
time with six cents per pound protec-
tive tariff that in 1906 Hawaii pro-
duced from twenty-four to thirty thou
sand bags worth perhaps S250,0oO 70
5000. 900. or a little less than one day
supplv for the United States, / think
that after cultivating coffee for over
eighty wears, and then not being able
to nroduce with protective tariff and
all. more than days supply for our
people. it would be hardly worth while
for the people of the United states TO
Mace this enormous burden upon them
selves.
Labor. another feature of the coffee
production in Hawaii, is the labor
ouestion. From the best advice am
able to obtain. the lands of Hawaii
Law idle because of insufficient labor TO
| fiji them. It is of quite recent occur
renee that sugar planters and others
drew heavily upon Japan for cheap Ia
bor. While the United states. with It's
/ unlimited wealth. anu 1AICAlielu1NAShN
| sources, might, with a high protective
tariff. continued appropriations OF
money. energy and men, develop Ha-
waits coffee industry, it would hardly
seem that the end would justify the
means. According to best statfsticians'
the United states uses more than one
half of the worlds production OF coffee
which would make something like ten
| or twelve million bags, or in other
words, Mr.. Burners tax would mean
to the consumers of the United States
| the enormous sum of three hundred
million dollars annually. I hardly
/ think Congress would dare place TINS
burden upon its constituency 1t IS
worse than useless for Mr.. Bruner TO
dodge the issue. as he evidently tres
IN do in dividing this burden upon the
reople of this country, in which ne
| finally arrives at the conclusion that
! the amount of thirty-six cents per
capita per year would pay this tarin'
He could have obtained much smaller
| figures by dividing it up over each cup
| of coffee drank over the breakTas'