The Owosso times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1897-1926, 1908-08-14
This IS THE MAGNIFICENT INDUSTRY FOR
WHICH CONGRESSMAN F0RDNEY HAS FOUGHT

|
can farmer to compete against such
wages unless there is a protective
tariff. Moreover, every piece of ma
chinery which enters into a sugar
| factory is protected by a high tariff
and every agricultural implement
which We use on the farm is thus pro-
| tected. Is it fair to ask either the
manufacturer or the farmer to sell
| his product in Hon-protected market
when everything he buys which en-.
| tiers into the production of that COM
modify is covered by high TARIFF"
From the standpoint of the con-
sumer, sugar tariff is beneficial. If
you will examine the prices Of the va.
| rious necessaries of life during the
past ten years, you will find that there
has been marked increase in every
| one OF them with the exception of SUI
gar. The average price of sugar for
the past year is only one-tenth of a
/ cent per pound higher than it was in
1896 under the Wilson bill. The great.
est sugar price regulator is our domes-
tic beet crop, which comes on the
market at the very time when the
eastern refiners are buying their Gu
ban raws. The effect is to hold down
the price of refined sugar and, conse-
quently, to lower the price of raws,
thus establishing lower market on
which to base the price of refined SUI.
gar for the remainder of the year. II
you destroy the domestic beet sugar
industry you would, by that act, ulti-
mately advance the price of refined
sugar throughout the entire country
Moreover, the granulated sugar made
from beets, though as good as any
cane sugar, is sold in the neighbor-
hood OF quarter of a cent a pound
less than the price of cane sugar The
consumer gets a direct benefit from
this in all markets where beet sugar is
sold. This sugar now finds market
from the Pacific coast as far east as
lPittsburg and Buffalo, thus .distribu.
ting its advantages over the major
part of the United States.
1T seems to me as though our law
makers have not appreciated the Won
derful development of this industry in
the United States during the past de-
cade, in that they have been constant
ly trying to whittle down the sugar
schedule as fixed by the Dingley bill in
1897. First, there was the free admis-
sion of Porto Rican sugar, which caus-
ed the crop in that island to multiply
Ifourfold Second, there was the 209o
concession on sugar imported from
Cuba, which has caused a marked in
crease in the Cuban crop, all of which
comes to the United States. Third,
congress passed law which made a
25% concession on sugar imported
from the Philippines, and, coupled
with this, a law which provided that
1850 duties actually collected should
be returned to the Philippine treasury
to relieve local taxation, thus virtually,
as far as our treasury is concerned
establishing free trade in sugar be-
tween the philippines and the United
States. Fourth, from 1876 to 1898 Ha-
wall was granted free trade by virtue
of treaty with the United States.
In the latter year those islands were
formally annexed to this country and
our tariff laws extended around them,
thus giving them absolute free trade
with the United States. This condi-
ton existed until 1906, when the ex-
else taxes collected in Hawaii, also the
duties collected on foreign goods en-
tering their ports, were returned to
Hawaii to relieve local taxation. The
effect of this legislation has been to
double the Hawaiian output of sugar
since 1898.
THE combined result of these four
concessions in the sugar schedule has
been so to increase the amount of
free and concessionary sugar entering
the United States that at the present
time only 355,000 tons of sugar pay the
full rate Of duty and all the balance
comes in either free or at reduced
rate. The favors extended by this
Legislation covered last year the i'm
portation of /, 100000 tons of sugar and
reduced the average rate of duty on
sugar entering the United States 33
percent from the schedule fixed by
the tariff act of 1897. 1t would thus
seem that this particular schedule has
already received all the reduction
that could in justice be expected.
I'm view of the steady increase i'm
the expenses of the government l am
wondering where the revenue is going
to come from if the tariff is reduced
much further. Sugar is now the larg-
est revenue producer listed in our tar
| if. Some people say that if we will
reduce the tariff on sugar we will in
crease our revenue. Such an increase
could only come from two sources:
First, by increasing the consumption,
but the per capita consumption in the
United States is now the highest it
ever has been and second only to that
in England. The English per capita
consumption is greater because Eng
land makes all the jams and preserves
used in her colonies and not because
the people in England eat more sugar
than do those in the United States.
Second, If the tariff on sugar is low
cred, the revenue might be increased
by wiping out the domestic crop of
beet and cane, which is now about
100000 tons, and substituting therefor
foreign sugar. Certainly if the domes.
tic crop remains where it is the in
creased importatiops cannot be great |
er than the regular annual increase in
consumption, or about $4,000 tons,
which would not materially effect the
revenues. He would indeed be a bold
man who would advocate the destruc-
ton of the domestic beet and cane in
dustry and the substitution of for
eign product therefor, especially when |
Al.