Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-05-29
EDITOR
EXPERT TESTIMONY"


The Hon. Dan r. Stephens from the mperia
state of Nebraska, takes up several pages of TIL
Congressional Record merely with an "exten
sion Of remarks" on the Underwood tariff bill
What the gentleman's original remarks, uney
ended, were We know not, but they may b
guessed at from the following excerpts from hi
extension relating to the sugar schedule:
One of the big of the Underwood bill that
has caused much controversy is the question free
sugar after three with a reduction once of
% cent. VI is admitted that sugar can be pro-
duced profitably in Cuba at cents pound whereas
IL costs about Y cents in Louisiana. Some claim
that free trade would destroy the eane-sugar
dustry but it is generally admitted that it WILL
that the industry is not legitimate; that il wo I'D be
as reasonable to try to grow oranges in dollhouse
in Maine by giving II tariff protection try 10
keep alive this Louisiana industry any longer 1t
is costing the American people all it worth every
year in the extra price OF sugar. Mr.. Underwood
estimates that the American people pay at least
$11500O000 vear extra for their sugar as result
Of the tariff of nearly cents pound levied for the
protection of this industry. That of money
almost enough to buy the whole Louisiana sugar
dustry including the lands which the cane is
grown, and yet We have paid for this outfit once
every year for the last ten years, total of
sideraby billion dollars in the added price of
nearly two cents pound the sugar have
sumed. But IL impractical to
keep this tariff sugar for the protection of this
cane-sugar industry it is admitted by all that
the beet-sugar product would drive it off the mar
ket anyway, because the cost of beetsugar produce
ton is much less.
The producers of beet sugar claim they need pro-
lection, but matter of fact every plant in the
country is paying dividend and of them
cessively large dividends capital stock that is
half or water. Not only is this true, but the
sugar refining trust has controlling interest in
nearly all the beet-sugar plants in the country and
controls the price on domestic sugar. Sugar is
sold at Wholesale to the groceryman who lives with
in the shadow of bee-sugar factory at exactly the
import price of sugar plus the cost of freight from
the seaboard The big question is, Can beet sugar
compete with foreign sugar? The facts show that
il can. The American people have no moral Obliga-
ton to pay dividend on at least twice the capital
invested in this industry through protective tariff
This bill may squeeze out some of the water and
place the business solid foundation, SO it will
not have to be crying around congress for govern
nent partnership in Fleeing the people. An indus
try located the semiarid plains from 15O0 to 1000
miles from the seaboard with high wall of freight
rites protecting it from competition with foreign
sugar is much safer from disaster than the farmers
who now compete with the foreigner to whom he
sells HIS surplus wheat, and cotton. The beet
sugar factories will have plenty to do to supply the
sugar in this ailroad-protected territory. They do
not have to sell sugar in foreign market as does
the farmer and then it is unfair to compel the farm
er who must compete with the foreigner to pay out
his profits to the sugar producers who have mar
ket at their doors for all the sugar they can produce
The grain and stock farmer hires real American Ia
Dor and is entitled to square deal, whereas this
protected trust-controlled gambling industry en-
ploys Japanese, Chinese, Hindus and rag-tag labor
from whatever country it can get it. That is the
policy of every protection-fatted industry we have
in this country.
L would not want to destroy the beet-sugar indus
try, and do not believe free sugar will destroy it.
It will have years to adjust itself to this new
tariff Let us see what will happen in these three
years