The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1911-06-13

This arrangement be universal hmong
The Hawaiian shippers, and ls oxplhin.
"a BY The sugar frutt on The groiud
that The trust "a entitled 20 the az.
ference 10 tho freight rates
Injustice 70 Coast Consumers.
But according TO Mr.. Lowry this ex.
cuso Is simply an Ingenious device 10
extort money from the consumer The
price Of refined sugar Re made for the
entire country In New York City, and
prices for any other city Ia the United
States are New York prices plus the
freight TO that city.
In consequences prices for refined
sugar are quoted in san Francisco at
from fifty TO seventy.five cents per 100
pounds over the New. York quotation,
which rules the market, the difference
depending on whether the sugar goes
by all rail or boat and rail.
This is the results; BY its contract
with the Hawaiian shippers the trust
gets it's sugar in San Francisco at thirty.
seven and half cents per 100 pounds
less than what it has to pay in New
York The trlst has established re-
fineries on the Pacific Coast, and there
fore refnes this sugar just where it is
brought to port.
Then it sells the product at New
York prices plus the freight between
New York and San Francisco, thereby
netting not less than $3.50 per tor
/ of refined sugar, which is a dead weight
of profit placed on the consumer, eacl
handler of the product, simply carry
ing the differential along till it reaches
the consumer.
tLast year." says Mr.. Lowry, eth,
consumption of sugar through SaI
Francisco (from the Hawaiian Islands,
was Al 1856 tons, so that it will be see;
that this difference along made al
extra profit for the sugar trust of 81,
234, 1880, which came out of thu
pockets of the consumers, in addition
to the normal profit for refining. Sure
ly protection is not needed here.''
The basis of the argument being tn
New York price, Mr.. Lowry has mad
very careful analysis of the New
York conditions and shows that tn,
tariff of nearly two cents a pound
simply pushed on to the ebo'''7--s o
the consumer and has no justification
in the ordinary understanding of pro
| tection.''
Beet Industry the EXCUSE.
1t cannot be commended, he says, tina
the Louisiana cane sugar trade is al
infant industry, as it has existed sine
1928, and is not as prosperous toda,
as formerly. The beet sugar industr
is the only apparent excuse for proteC
tion, and Mr.. Lowry draws attention
to the fact that in the suit of tn
United States against the sugar trus
it was disclosed that the American
Sugar Refining Company, either own
or through it's officers or stockholders
controlled the great bulk of the bee
sugar industry in this country. Nj
Lowry also shows that the beet saga
industry avails itself to the full of tn
tariff protection by piling up the pric
of refined beet sugar to equalize tina
| of refined cane sugar. There is no
the slightest symptom of competition.
By statistics Mr.. Lowry shows tina
the beet sugar industry is not profit
able one in many cases, despite tn
tariff, being supported by State bouI
ties, and he proves that this is largel
due to the attempts to produce beet
for sugar purposes in territory who'll,
unsuited to the growing of the veget
liable.
Mr.. Lowry points out the injustice o
allowing free sugar from Porto Rice
where the sugar trust, he says, cor
trolls all the mills and establishes tn
price, while sugar prod1eed in Cub
has to pay a tariff only slightly les
than that from Santo Domingo an
the other great raw sugar producin
eenters. The Philippine situation, j
which it is understand Mr.. Spreckel
is most deeply interested, is the subjec
of long analysis by Mr.. Lowry, bu
for the general public's information
may be summed up in few words.
Until the Payne-Aldrich tariff wen
through, Philippine sugar was dutiabl,
Now it comes in free, under the limiti
ton that when more than 100000 tor
a year are imported the excess sha
pay duty, and the further limtatio
that preference in the right of FIRE
i entry shall be given to "produeers Q
less than 500 tons a year"
~ Other Iniquities of Tariff.
Mr.. Lowry points to these qualifc,
tons on free sugar from the Philil
pines as a great victory for the sugG
trust, though hailed when the bill weI
through as terrible blow to protecte
sugar. He says that the industri
conditions under which sugar can /
produced profitably are such that thes
Limitations make it impossible for
Vigorous competition of the America
Sugar Refining Company to establis
itself in the Philippines.
The small producer cannot hope
. market his prodact except as the trul
chooses to let him, because no oth'
refining company of any importanc
would care to involve itself in stu,
: ton where, as soon as its importation
exceeded 100000 tons, duty of near
: two cents a pound would be demands
: from it.
In other ways Mr.. Lowry SHOW
what he calls the iniqnity of the s1g.
Z ltariff, and he gives figures to prov
that the ultimate consumers must NJ
only pay the tariff, but must also pa
7 the interest on or cost of handling II
enormous dlties. He reckOns that Il
average family in the United Stat,
consumes 400 pounds of sugar We.
} and that the duty on this amounts
mora than AZ Nysrv twelve months