The Washington times., 1909-05-08
A CHANCE FOR REAL REVIS-
ION. NO. XIV.

In the discussion of the sugar duties,
the American principle is in no way
involved The necessity of proper pro-
lection TO American labor and a fair
profit to the American manufacturer
Is always conceded. The thing protest
ed against is the wicked protection of
an oppressive monopoly in its exploita-
tion of American labor-for the people
who feel the burden of the tax are
those to whom an added expense of S22
year in the feeding of family of
five means distress. Such people are
always laboring people.
The sugar factories are not large
employers of labor if their immense
operations are taken into account. A
writer describing the huge refineries of
the Sugar trust mentions their desert
ed" appearance. The immense improve
ments in the refining of sugar which
have brought the price of the opera
tion down to where Henry o. Have
meyer admitted that it cost him only
half cent pound, and de Witt Warn
er, after exhaustive research estimated
its cost at .375 cents, and Bryon w.
Holt at a third of cent a pound, have
been effected largely through automatic
machinery and the use of unskilled.
nonunion labor. Automatic coal
passers take the coal TO mechanical
stokers, automatic conveyers carry the
sugar to the machinery for putting it
through its varions stages, and labor is
a small part of the industry. 1t is
small in the beet sugar industry, as to
which the British Consul Wyndham
gave estimates which show that there is
only. &c cents of labor in ton Of
sugar, on which Mr.. Clarkin, writing
in the Century in 1908, estimates that
the beet sugar men got a profit of
from $50 to $40 ton, and on which, if
Mr.. Wyndham's impartially compiled
figures are correct, they must make
nearer $50 ton under our tariff.
1t is still less in the refneries. If
al these unslilled laborers were
thrown out of employment they could
obtain other uns<illed labor, and in
good times would be absorbed into the
mass of labor without shock. But
as a fatter of fact, the tariff is too
much for the protection of our labor,
even if foreign sugar were refined with
out labor, and the immense fotations of
watered sugar securities prove that it
gives the American manufacturer an
inordinate profit at the expense Of the
peoples food, instead Of that fair
profit which the Republican platform
promises.
If there is any doubt that the con-
sumer pays the duty. and all of it, in
the mind Of any person, it should be
borne in mind that this is one of the
cases i. which no one can claim that
the foreigner pays the tax. N some
cases he may, but in this not even the
Sugar trust claims it.
Take the market Cf March %. last.
for instance. The price of raw sugar at
New York was e.3l5 cents a pound.
The duty on it was I6s5 cents. The
price, duty paid, was 2.3I5-I6s5, or
just cents a pound-no more, no less.
Az home grown sugar was priced. and
always is, TO correspond with the for
eigs. On this day, March %, the re-
finsss' cash price TO wholesale grocers
was 4.sG cents. and the Wholesalers
got from the retailer from 400 to 4.95.
the consumer paying at the grocery
s store from 500 to 700, depending on
the local competition and other cir
cumstances.
Thus duty of Sl.6s1k a hundred on
a staple that is worth but -s2-3l1h a
hundred at our ports, is at the rate
of between 7s and 70 per cent ad va
loren. IL is only So per cent on
champagnes, 45 per cent on automo-
biies, 35 per cent on fars, 20 per cent
'on raTe paintings and statuary, and
10 per cent on diamonds.
Last year, the duty on sugar cost
ths people who eat the immense sum
of S4SOOO.OOO. Only part of this
vRnt into the Treasury of the Gov
ernment as duties paid. The balance
went to pay the dividends of the sI45.-
100000 of stock-mos1ey water-of the
Sugar trust, the slOO,OOO.OOO of stock
mostly water-of the Sugar trusts
beet sugar plants, and the stock, water
ed or not, of the Arbual<les, the
Spreckelsss, and other refiners. 1t was
taken out of the people in proportion
10 their hunger, and not according 10
their ability. It operated to make the
tables of the workers Of the land less
bountiful and their food less palatable.
And it opsrated strongly against the
industry of growing and preserving Of