The Logan Republican. [volume] (Logan, Utah) 1902-1924, 1912-04-13

history OF our sugar tariff legislation.
In 1883, when the first tariff act OF
the new Republic was passed, a duty
of to cents per pound was laid on
| importations of foreign sugar, and In
every successive tariff act, with but
one exception, from that day to this
a duty has been imposed on sugar.
The Mckinley act of 1890, which in
lieu OF a duty gave bounty of 2
cents a pound, and even in that act
there was a duty of half cent per
pound on sugar above No. 16 Dutch
standard.
In 1890 the rate was fixed at IL
to cents per pound; IL to 8
cents in 1875; large ad valorem ad-
ditions thereto in 1900 and 1912; 3
to IL Gems in 1876; 2 liz cents in
1882; 2 IL to cents in 1912; 30 per
cent ad valorem in 1916 (the Walker
tariff; "a per cent in 1861, 1862 and
| 1884, 1 ga to cents in 1870; % per
cent in addition to pending rate in
1875; lao to $50 cents in 1888; under
No. 16 Dutch standard, free, .one-half
cent per pound duty on sugar above
| No. 16 Dutch standard, and bounty
of 2 cents a pound on all sugar in
| 1890 mckinley; 40 per cent ad val
orem and one-eighth cent pound id
ditional on sugar above. No. 16 Dutch
standard in 1874 (Wilson); 0.95 to
1875 cents in 1897 (Dingley); and
095 to 100 cents in 1909-the pre-
sent Payne-Aldrich law.
During the s years that Thomas
jefferson, the Father of Democracy,
occupied the White House-1S01 to
1S09-the duty on sugar was 1 IL
| to 3 cents pound; In the 16 years
incumbency Of those two great Demo
Gratis, Madison and Monroe-1S09 to
| 1S25-it was from to IL cents; when
Old Hickory, the Democrat of Demo-
Gratis. ruled supreme, followed by his
special pet, Van Buren-1S29 to 1S41
1T was to IL cents and then IL
to 1-2 cents: the Walker 30 per
cent ad valorem of 1916 came under
the Democrat, Polk-1S45 to 1S49;
the second advalorem, "a per cent,
was during the regime Of Buchanan,
and under Cleveland we had the AZ
per cent OF the Wilson Act, with one
eighth cent a pound additional on SUI
gars above No. 16 Dutch standard.
During this long period of 124 years
the Democrats have held the Presi'
dency for SO years, and never under
a Democrat has there been free SUI
gar, but always a duty on 1t which
brought large revenues and incident
ally gave sufficient protection to ma
terially assist the struggling indus
try.
At the present time sugar is our
best revenue producer, yielding an.
nually about fifty-two millions, and
it is the fairest and most uniformly
distributed of all national taxes.
Every citizen contributes his share
for everyone eats sugar from the ba.
be in its cradle to the old man totter.
ing on the grave. The cardinal prin.
ciple of taxation is equality and uni.
formity, and it is hard to find any.
thing that more truly embodies this
principle than our customs duty on
sugar.
Having shown the disastrous Ell
fects of free trade in sugar upon our
domestic industry our insular posses
sions, and Cuba; having proved that
the price of sugar is cheaper in pro-
portion than most articles of food,
and that no just complaint can be
made on that score; and having
pointed out the consistent national
policy of a good rate of duty on sugar
since the birth of the Republic, |
now wish to ask whence comes the
great agitation to have sugar placed
on the free list? Is it the bona fide
action of the American consumer who
bslives he is oppressed by the price
of this commodity and hopes to get
relief from Congress, or is it the e.
suit of well-planned scheme by the
sugar refiners? The Ways and Means
Committee and great many other
Members of Congress have flooded
by petitions that all of these petitions
appear to be on prepared sheets OF
perforated yellow paper, sent out by
Frank C. Lowry, sales agent of the
Federal Sugar Refining Company
Mr.. Lowry has been carrying on a
systematic campaign in the interest
of free sugar, pretending to repre-
cont n committee pf Wholesale GRO