The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1913-08-28
sDetrotz-A Million in 1920, Yet City With Soul

As In s,other lines OF endeavor. the
way To benefit American industry anu
at the same time cheaper the prodocs
TO consumers Is TO encourage nome
competition. and once the United
States produces all or more sugar tnan
its people consume. brisk competition
among domestic producers VIII preven'
any regulation OF prices to consumers
AN AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY.
While the refining OF imported raw
sugar IL merely a process OF washing
the dirt out of a nearly finished CON-
modify. the production OF sugar ID potr
an agricultural and q manufacturing
ployment for labor. The cost OF the
cane or beets forms so to so per cent
OF the total cost OF producing sugar In
ss rst to Sur and
second to our sugar producers. a
serious reduction In the price OF sugar
would result In lower prices for oests
and cane.
TARIFF AND THE COST OF SUGAR
Approximately one-half Of the sugar
we consume Is produced In continental
United States and its insular posses
tries.
BENEFICIARIES OF SUGAR TARIFF
REDUCTION.
During the year 1890. when congress
placed sugar on the free list, the aver
ase difference maintained by American
re1ners between raw and refined sikar
was 20 cents per 100 pounds. Under
free sugar the rehners steadily increas-
ed their margin between raw and re.
hned. and for the year 1898. the last
Assuming. however. that the .....:..
would be generous enough not to In.
crease their margin between raw -sn6
refined. but would pass the sugar over
to the jobbers at a price lower by the
fun amount Of the tariff reduction, nc
portion OF even considerable reduc-
tion In duty on sugar would reach the
III
the bureau OF labor collected data con.
corning the average monthly retail
psiesss OF FOOD "a, commo1isie. n IT. the s wn
show that during this ls.year period
sugar In the United States WA 90 cents
average New York wholesale price OF
aranuiated sugar was At cents per
pound. and thus there was q margin
distribution and pront. With this mar
gin Of nearly per cent per pound . r..
duction In cost OF one-tenth, or two
snns or Of cent Rss
or. II. however. the full reduction Of
duty would be reflected In the rsnnsrs'
tho retailers price az we'll. the saving
per capita would he too indnitesimal Ia
warrant the adoption Of measure
pansion Of the domestic beet sugar In
dustry. Our annual sugar consumption
per capita 10 81 pounds. Of which
amount the bureau Of labor finds that
1883 pounds per family. or sat pounds
per capita, are purchased a. sugar. the
oslance being used In the manufacture
Ing gum bread. and other articles. the
retail prices OF which are not affected
BY, the price Of sugar
Inasmuch as the average United
states per capita consumption u sugar
purchased as such. 10 6S7 pounds per
annum and the average rate Of duty
corrected nl;n on all dutisbic sugar impo,t:
cents per pound. Il follows that X the
domestic price OF sugar was increased
BY the full amount Of the duty, the
direct cost 70 the consumer, by reason
or the tariff on sugar, was 711o cents
for the year.
LOSS IN REVENUE.
might be Effected Ny the consumer
would be the loss In national rsvenuss
which. IL lost on sugar duties, must
be collected from the consumer In some
NET SAVING TO CONSUMERS
Deducting from the per capita saving
the per capita loss In revenue by roa-
son OF reduction In the rate OF duty
on fmportations OF dutiable sugar. 10
Will be seen that the net annual. per
capita gain to the consumer would be
as follows:
Gross annual
saving per capital
Annual loss
In revenue
FER capita.
Net annual