Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-05-20

The argument in support of the removal OF the
duy rests upon the assertion that the change would
greatly consumers by reducing tie cost Of liv-
ing In opposition il is said that the duty. widely
d.ifused in consumption and by no means burden
some Yields large amount l$52G00 000) of revenue
tat it sustains one industry and has created and
buit up another that Indirectly it has FAVORED and
fOstercd the sugar industry of Hawaii, which sup
plies nne-tenths of the islands exports, and that
its influence has been exerfed in the way upon
tEc industry in Porto Rico and the Philippines. The
preferential concession of 20 per cent to Cuba has
the warrant for preferential concessions grant
ed Cuba and these have ncrea scd our exports to
the island If the duty should be removed treaty
Of reciprocity with Cuba would die, and Cuba's tar
iff concessions would probably die with it,
1t is asserted by persons interested in or familiar
with the sugar industry of Hawaii that removal Of.
tie duty would it and thus greatly depress he
island This is by far their greatest industry There
- no available substitute for it Local capital owns
and controls it. and there more than 10000 stock
holders Owing to the higher cost of labor on the ISL
ards they could not compete with Java if there were
no tariff discrimination. The ruin of their sugar IN
dnstry would decrease the purchasing power Of the
ISLANDERS very perceptiby reduce exports 10 them
from the states.
What would our consumers gain by removal OF the
duty? The per capita consumption here is about 80
nounds n wear but this includes the sugar used in
confectionery condensed milk and other kinds OF
food the retail price of which would not be affected'
Probably it is fair to the average directly con-
cerned is 60 pounds The average duty is NIUE
less than ~ cents pound If the consumers gam
should be equal to the duty-and it might not bet
would amount to 30 cents year BY the reduction
~ oneouarter he would profit to the extent of y z
cents.
But it is bv no means clear that the reduction or
r,ovol would he the measure of his gain There
are wholesale merchants who predict tnat ne wou'l
Gain nothing. although $520O0000 of revenue would
be lost If the domestic cane and beet sugar lnuus-
tries should be greatly depressed or botted OUT e
worlds output would be reduced and prices Wouio re
affected by the old law of supply and demand KUN
IF Hawaiis industry would also reduce output sup
plv would be controlled exclusively by foreign pro-
ducers and by the confederated reners here, whose
interests would be served by free sugar and by de-
rression or destruction of the domestic cane anu
beet Industries.
In our opinion the arguments against remoVai vi
tho dirty on sugar far outweigh those in favor OF IT,
and e think that those parts of the tariff bill which
rotate To sugar should not be enacted
The business of the writer's in these reviews
q weigh impartially the evidence for and again'
particular attitude on current events or POI
les and to Judge according to sober ana soull
,eason. The daily papers that support Mr. WI
on are naturally upholding his attitude on s.
yar. but even his friends among the serious p
.;odicals cannot defend the removal OF the tarl
IN this commodity.