Omaha daily bee., 1908-11-23
TIE. TARIFF ON SUGAR.

The hearings on the sugar and
molasses schedule of the Dingley tariff
before the ways and means committee
at Washington have developed some
very interesting facts touching on the
sugar business of the country and have
brought out some views diverse from
those urged by the manufacturers of
cane and beet sugar. The cane and
beet sugar operators declare that they
could produce all the sugar consumed
IL the country, II supplies from other
sources were kept out by high protec-
tive tariffs, admitting that the result
would, for some years at least, keep
prices high. The r%efiners, however,
contend that the whole country would
be benefited by a removal of all sugar
tariffs.
In the course of the hearings a
partner in the Arbuckle Brothers re-
filming enterprises declared hat while
as a manufacturer he favored a protec-
tive duty on refined sugar. as a citizen
he believed the welfare of the whole
people would be advanced by taking
the tariff off. He argued that the
tariff on raw sugar is of practically no
benefit to the growers of sugar cane
and sugar bets; that all American
r~efiners buy the raw sugar as cheaply
as they can and at the most advantage
Gus season, and that the protection on
. ,,, ,,oar a.. ohanrhAA hu fha mann
facturers and the refiners.
President Spreckles OF the Federal
Sugar Refining company, endorses the
Arbuckles argument, but goes much
further. In the course of a carefully
prepared statement, he said:
Beet sugar factories located in proper
localities such as Colorado, Utah, Idaho
and Oregon. should, and l am informed
can, produce graduated sugar at 2h cents
a pound. OF course. II It be the purpose
OF this government to impose a tariff
which will enable the production in un-
suitable localities at the expense of the
American public, then an import duty is
necessary and will always nave to be
maintained.
A recent report by the Department
of Agriculture shows that the beet
sugar industry in the west is profitable,
with a margin that would not be seri-
ously affected by the removal of the
sugar duty, while in Michigan, where
there are sixteen sugar refineries, the
business has been operated at a very
small profit, or at a loss. The argu-
ment for tariff removal on sugar is that
the entire country should not be taxed
to maintain an industry in Michigan
that cannot thrive there, on account of
soil and climatic conditions.
The sum and substance of the testi-
mony offered at the hearings appear
to show that the tariff on sugar chiefly
benefits the r%efiners. The Sugar trust
owns, or controls, practically all the
sugar supply of Cuba, Porto Rico and
the Philippines. More than half OF the
imported supply ONE from Cuba, in
the form of raw sugar. The big ON
Germs are anxious to have the duty on
this grade of sugar removed, as they
feel that the cost of refining in this
country is less han abroad, and they
are willing to have the tariff on refined
sugar removed in order to get their
raw material more cheaply.
Mr.. spreckles pointed out n argu-
ment for removal of the sugar tariff
not usually considered. He declared
that the Sugar trust owns, or controls,
most of the raw sugar supply in Cuba
and the supply of cane sugar, that is
duty free, from Hawaii and Porto Rico,
while the Independent concerns are
compelled to get their raw material
from the West Indies, on which a duty
must be paid. In a word, the trust is
so intrenched that a tariff change of
any kind will help in one quarter al
most as much as it can hurt it in
another.