The Democratic banner. (Mt. Vernon, Ohio) 1898-192?, 1913-06-24
VIEWS
Of Congressman 1avenner On
Duty On sugaf
And Some Interesting Facts
About The Sugar Industry

10y Congressman Clyde II. Tavsnnsr)
Washington, June 2O---Compare the
total investment In the American su-
gar industry with the amount the du-
ty on sugar costs the American peo-
pie annually, and we pick up the clue
explaining why, despite the presence
of the sugar Hobbies in Washington,
the 2-cent tariff tax is to be removed
from sugar.
Exclusive Of land and farm animals
(Which can be used In other farming
operations) the total investment In
sugar in the United States is about
s1OO.O0O,O 900. For the benefit Of the
few men owning this industry, the
American people are taxed annually
in the increased price Of sugar $f40,.
5000, or 34O.o00,00 more than the
total sugar Investment. It 10 also $40 !.
100000 more than the total annual
value Of the American sugar crop in.
Guiding its by.products.
To the individual this tax amounts
to s1.5O or an annual charge of $3.50
on family of average size.
Since 1897 the protection to the su.
gar industry has cost American con-
sumers two thousand million dollars.
Eut IL the public got value received
for this sum--in revenue to defray
the cost of government-there would
not be so much complaint. But the
actual duty collected In 16 years has
been only $s00,0O0,000. The balance,
81 ,20O, 900, 900, has been bonus pure
and simple wrung from the poor to
create new group Of American mil.
lionaires.
Leaving aside the principle that su.
gar as prime food necessity should
come untaxed to the American pub
lie, the production OF cane sugar in
this country is an artificial, unnatur.
al industry. There are two types
of sugar production-from sugar
beets. grown In many sections Of the
country, and from sugar cane grown
along the gulf coast Of Louisiana and
Texas. It Is possible. indeed prob.
able, that beet sugar production has
now progressed to Q point where 1t
can be called q natural industry. II
so. 1t does not need protection in or.
der to survive. But there is no ma
tural Justification for cane sugar pro.
duction In the United States.
It Is possible to grow bananas and
tea In New England In hot houses.
Yet not even the most rabid protec.
ZIONIST would advocate q prohibitive
duty on bananas or tea, raising the
prices of these foods ten times above
what they are now, In order that
tea and bananas might be produced
with profit In hot houses In New Eng.
land.
In q somewhat smaller degree cane
sugar growing Is hot-house indus
try. The sugar In cane Is called sue
rose by chemists. Louisiana cane is
only six to seven per cent sucrose,
while Cuban cane is IL to II per cent
and Hawaiian from IA to Is per cent
sucrose--or over twice Be much sugar
In the same amount of cane.
In Cuba sugar cane grows natural
ly, and Is planted once every 10 years.
In Louisiana the cane must be re-
planted every year. There 10 never
frost In Cuba; In Louisiana the cane
must be cut In October before ma.
turity to escape frost. thus account
ing for the lower sucrose content.
Louisiana sugar mills are antiQuated;
while some OF the Cuban factories are
tho latest and most efficient In the
world.
And so, though Louisiana wages
are much lower than those paid in
Cuba, It costs nearly four cents to
produce pound Of raw sugar In Lou
isiana against q Cuban cost Of two
cents Said Representative T. w.
Hardwick. OF Georgia, the great su
gar expert Of. the House:
I'm order to produce q cane sugar
crop valued at 325,OOO,O00, our Louis
lana friends insist that we ought tc
continue system OF taxation that
costs the American people $4,000,
900 In the increased price Of sugar II
is undemocratic; 1t Is unfair, 1t IL
unrighteous; and, so far a. ! am con
cerned, will never stand for con
tinuance OF this policy to keep . duty
on this great necessity Of life which
cannot possibly be produced in Lou
isiana one-half as cheaply 90 It car
In the balance OF the world"