St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1913-01-11
The Democrats and Free Sugar.

One of the promises made by
the Democrats during the recent
campaign was that the country
should have free sugar, with the
result that the householder would
be able to buy that table necess-
ity at a very much lower price.
But Senator Gore, in sizing up
probable legislation of the spe-
cial session, has decided that
free sugar is an impossibility.
Senator Gore is very likely
right. The Democrats, we are
glad to believe, will not pass a
bill giving US free sugar, Or MAX
ing any great reduction in the
tariff on that article. Why won't
they? Well, there are two rea-
sons, One is the selfish reason
that there are too many Demo-
Gratis senators and representa-
tives from sugar-producing sec
tons. They will not want to see
the sugar growing industry
ruined in their home States
by throwing open the doors and
allowing the Eastern refners to
buy the raw article cheaper than
they can produce it. Neither
will they want to see the sugar
refinery industry of their States
ruined by taking all duty off the
refined article. There are enough
of this sort of senators and rep
resentatiyes to hold up tariff leg
lation until they get about what
they want on sugar, and we may
be sure they will do it.
But there is another and very
much better reason why the
Democrats will not pass a free
sugar bill. That is that a major
ity Of them realizes the truth of
what President Taft told the last
Congress. It had passed what
was practically a free sugar bill,
which would Immediately deprive
the treasury Of $55, 900, 900 an
nually, to be made up by an ex-
else tax, or tax on occupants.
But President Taft vetoed it be-
cause, as he said, its first effect
would be to ruin the American
beet sugar industry, and thus re-
duce the domestic supply; it's sec
ond effect would necessarily be
to raise the price of sugar, since
the worlds supply is already
short.
Reduction in the price of sugar
can be effected only by increas-
ing production to the point where
the supply will be adequate, and
by attacking the monopoly of
sugar refining. The amount of
raw sugar imported into this
country has no effect on the re-
tail price, which is made artifici-
ally at the refinery. The way to
break the refinery trust is to en-
courage independent refineries
to set the industries free" in
the language of President-eleet
Wilson. The promotion of the
beet sugar industry has much to-
ward that end, by encouraging
the building of Independent re-
fineries in the section where
sugar beets are produced. With
these plentiful enough-and they
would become much more plenti-
full if insured against free trade
interference-the strangle hold
Of the Sugar Trust would mighty
soon be lost altogether.
Free sugar to-day would be
disasterous to the beet sugar in
dustry, which employs Is, 900
men and supplies Is per cent of
our sugar demand. Free refin-
is, the fixing of prac-
an equal tariff on raw and
refined s~ugar-Would do some
for the consumer. But to
take off al the duty on either
raw or refined would not ruin a
great industry, but would harm
instead of help the consumer.
And besides all tina. it would run
counter to the Democratic policy
q farim for rnvanun What