The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1909-04-21
OPPORTUNITY FOR REAL RE-
VISION. NO. 2.

There are highly encouraging evi-
dences that Congress is not going to
be permitted to sleep through this re-
vision, without once being awakened
TO even a consideration of the foremost
of all tariff impositions, sugar.
From both the Republican and the
Democratic sides comes the word that
sugar is going to be investigated; is
being investigated; is to be aired; and
that some voting will be forced.
Senator Bristow of Kansas is making
the investigation on the Republican
side; Senator Clay of Georgia on the
Democratic.
Senator Clay has introduced an
amendment to the schedule which he
proposes to press at the right time,
with the view, not of giving free sugar,
but of pairing off the upper strata of
the Himalayan mountain of profits
which the Sugar trust coaxes out of
the public every year.
1t is agreed by Republicans and
Democrats alike that free sugar is
neither necessary nor desirable. There
Is q sugar production in this country
which beyond question is entitled to
be given consideration. It may be that
investigation will demonstrate that a
bounty to the producers of beet and
cane sugar in this country would be
Just as good for them, and good deal
better for the consumer; indeed, we
strongly suspect it would. The in
vestigation is going to be made, and
the public viii in due time be informed
of its results.
But thus far the point on which the
sugar investigators in both parties are
agreed is simply that the Sugar trust
is a tariff trust, and is getting better
thing, at the public's expense, than any
trust should be allowed.
Here is what the trust does:
1t imports and refines about two
thirds of the country's sugar It makes
exorbitant profits on doing that, be
cause the tariff wall is adjusted to
protect the beet and cane sugar in.
dustries, which produce the other third
In giving the beet and cane industrie:
3 living protection-in theory, at least
the tariff gives the trust a protec
ton which makes it the richest thing
now extant. Would it not be better
to give the beet and cane peopl,
bounties on exactly what they pro
duce, than to give them bountiet
on what they produce and ther
give the trust bounties on twic,
as much more? 1t certainly seems
plausible and worthy of investigation
There is no longer any great Difficult
ty getting at facts about sugar. Tn,
trade reports of Britain and Germany
give them; so do those of Holland
France, and indeed almost every coun
tryi for sugar is q staple everywhere
and its political economy has beer
everywhere a most interesting and i'm
Dortant part of the policies of govern
ments. Napoleon paid bounties an,
developed the beet sugar business il
France. Germany has pursued lik
policy. The United States has seen fl
to give the bounty indirectly, by wa,
of protection; and it has got, not
great beet sugar industry, capable o
supplying this nation with sugar an
then exporting vast amount, but tn
Sugar trust.
Is it wJrth while? Isn't it time t
investigate other methods and lear
whether the thing cannot be accom-
plished at a less expeRSe than SII3
100000 a year.
That is what the United States pay
annually for sugar, in excess of what
would pay on the British price basis.
Is the Sugar trust worth enough t
justify the couEtry collecting tina
much from its breakfast tablesI