The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-04-16
DO DEALERS AND
 CONSUMERS OF
 SUGAR REALIZE? {?


 gar is costing the people nearly two cents per pound, or over $130. .O00, GOO annually, according to the testimony of MT. c. A. Sprecke1s, President of the Federal Sugar Refining Company. 1 a concern independent of the Trust. Only s52, 100000 Of this amount is col Iected by the Government and the | balance is tribute extorted by the tar 1 iff-favorei interests.
 1 That the percapita consumption of sugar in the United States is nearly | 82 pounds annually, so that the aver | age family of five persons uses 465 Tbs. | of sugar a year, making their sugar bill alone SPA. And the increased cost of this single food product to the av- craze family, due to the Tariff, is about $8 a year.
 1 That if the tariff on sugar was re- moved a barrel of sugar instead of ! costing the merchant on the average of about SIS could be bought for $11.s 90 l Or less?
 That the purchasing power of a dol | lar, on the average limited to 16 lbs under the present high rate, would be extended to 25 pounds under free su- gar.
 That the tariff on sugar, daily necessary of life in every household, is one, of the highest rates in the entire 1 schedule and compares with the rates on luxuries as follows:
 AD vALOREM RATE OF DUTY Sugar 7S.s7 per cent. Champagne, 70 per cent Automobiles 45 per cent F'urs 50 per Gent.
 Rare Paintings and statuary Is per cent. Diamonds, 10 per cent. That the removal of the duty on i.raw sugar from 1891 to 1894 reduced l the price of sugar in one week to 1s4c per pound and that because of the lower price at which people were able to purchase their supply of sugar con- sumption increased 29 per cent. in one year and 42 per cent. during the three years and five months tnls law was in operation?
 That past experience shows that any reduction of duty goes to the cons1rn- er and this is further supported by the expert testimony of MT. Wallace P. wI1ett,, recognized, as a leading sugar statistician in the United States who stated before the Hardwtck Committee:
 .'I would like to have the commit tee satisfied that any reduction of du- ty goes to the consumer and any ad- dition of duty is paid by the consun- CT in any year under any duty, mak- ing necessary allowances for market fluctuations effected by supply ana demand '' That the tariff has mainly operated to encourage over apitalization to the advantage of the domestic beet sugar promoters as may be illustrated by the following comparison1
 rehabilitation Tons. Mos Total Cane, 10000 900 2,761,513 IF 1rotaI Beet 143, ,ooo, 900 506 s25 SI
 That our farmers do not profit from it because they are paid no more, ana if anything less for bheir sugar beets blythe factory than the farmer in Ger many receives from the German fac tory the average price paid the Amer ican farmer being $5.50 per short ton in contrast to the price paid in Ger many in 1911-1912 of SCOT per long ton? In addition to the money, the German farmer gets his beet seed Tree from the factory and is returned from 40 to 60 per cent of his beet pulp. while the American farmer must buy his beet seed from the factory and no puIn is returned to him for feeding 1 the import duty levied in Germany IS i only 52c a hundred pounds on refined sugar in comparison with the rate in the United States of $1.S0 per hum | dred pounds)?
 That. according to the Governments allegation, 64 per cent of the beet su- gar is produced by companies In | which the Trust has interest, so that in this way the Trust profits from the indirect subsidy which is being paid to this industry, through the tar if, at the expense of the American consumer?
 That under free trade or a low tariff neither the Sugar Trust nor any other combination can advance the price or sugar in this country beyond the worlds value for the reason that as soon as any attempt is made to do so they would immediately come into competition with the foreign ref1ners? If we interpret the spirit of the times correctly this is the position in which American consumers demand that they be placed on all necessities of life, of which sugar is perhaps the most inn portant.
 The House passed a bill last year placing sugar on the free list and is expected to do the same at the com ing extra Session of Congress-; the benef1ciaries of the present high tariff