The Washington times., 1909-04-29
AN OPPORT UNITY FIR REAL
REVISION. NO. VII.

IN the course OF an article on this
page a few days ago, discussing the re-
finers' diffsrential between raw and re-
fined sugar in the present tariff law, it
was pointed out that the real average
duty paid per 100 pounds of sugar i'm
ported raw was in 1905 almost exactly
cent per pound.
The full duty provided by the Payne
bill - Sissy per 100 pounds; but only
a negligible part of the imported raw
sugar pays this full duty. The explana-
ton was given thus:
Under the reciprocity arrangement
with Cuba, raw sugar from that coun-
full Dingley rate. That places the
duty on Cuban raw at S1.4S1k cents
and makes the differential on this
sugar 47l5. Considering that about
proftable protection, this seems de-
cidedly generous to the trust
And We receive per annum about
is refined by the Sugar trust under
ential.
waiian sugar, raw, comes TO this coun-
rry free OF duty each year. On this
the full duty on refined sugar meas
ureS the 6ifferential in favor OF the
refiher. he gets a leeway of S1.95 to
pay cost OF refining, and profits; and
IL Is the testimony that 11h cents will
cover both items. On this part Of the
sugar, therefore, the refiners seem to
be doing quite well.
From Porto Rico we receive annual
" about 100000 tons of raw sugar,
also free of duty; another 100000 tons
which has protection OF S1.s5 for
the refiner.
In short, there is brought into the
country only the insignificant total of
$4,000 tons OF raw sugar which pays
the full S1.6Sz duty that is imposed
on raw sugar.
Making weighted averages of these
amounts and duties. il develops that
RAW SUGAR COMING INTO THE
COUNTRY, IS 1.O4 CENTS PER
POUND.
Now, it would be assumed that these
concessions to the importer in the duty
he must pay, should be reflected in the
price of sugar to the consumer. Have
they been so refectedl Has sugar been
substantially cheaper because it cost
less to the importeri ANY housewife
who has kept her grocery bills viii give
Che answer promptly, and in the mega
tive.
These concessions to the importer
have amounted in the last few years to
almost $500 1000, 900. We have received
from Hawaii since its sugar was given
free admittance, an amount of sugar
which at the full rates of duty (Sl.6s1k
per 100 poundsl would have paid $780,
9ls,O00 in duties.
We have received from Cuba an
amount of sugar which, at the full rate
of sl.6sK, would have paid 81, ,2l2,OOO
more than it actually did pay at 80
per cent of Dingley rates.
The sugar from Porto Rico, had it
been charged the full duty, would have
paid sl4.GOO,OOO more than it actually
did pay at the reduced rate.
Who got the beneft2
Did the consumer?
The study of the prices Of sugar in
the market does not justify the claim
that he did.
There is total of Slss, 10000 allow
D8B4 W AAAb lN-&A - A7s "a kHkkAAAk It's
raw material into the country. Who
has got the benefit Of that allowance 2
The eonsumer2
The answer is found in the fact first
that there has been no corresponding
and adequate reduction in the consum-
er's price; and, second in the fact that
the American Sugar Refining Company
1.-THE trust) showed at the close of 1906
total assets of sl39, ,93s, of which
only $50 yo29, ,220 was in real estate and
machinery. The rest was in cash, bills
receivable, sugar on hand, and invest
ments in other companies. In this latter
item investments in other companies" !"
it reported it had S5O,9s8,93S.
The concessions in the duty on raw
sugar, it appears, went mainly to en-
sbligh the Sugar trust TO make that
magnificent showing of solvency.
Why not reduce the trusts protection
and give some of the good things to
the o0nsUmer7