New Iberia enterprise and independent observer. (New Iberia, La.) 1902-1944, 1913-04-12
THE FREE SUGAR FALLACY.

The main argument used ny
President Wilson aud the Demo
cratic leaders IN favor oi Tree Ell@
Gar iH the claim that IT viii cheap
ON the cost Of very important
article Of dalIy consumption,
thereby reducing the cost of NV
iuy for The MASSES. They brush
aside the fnrt that placing sugar
on the free list will deprive he
government Of about Fo5 zoe. .ooO
Of annual revenue by promising
to make good that loss hy tho
proposed income tax. The dea.
trnciIon Of the domestic pugnr In
duairy and the misery that ils
elimination will bring upon hun
,lrc1a Of thousands Of people III
Louisiana. Toxns and nearly n
dozen Western States does mot
appear to have figured in their
calculations at all. nlihorgh the
Democratic platform expressly
dee lnroa that the roy tision of tho
tariff should be 80 brought about
as not TO seriously cripple any
legitimate American industry.
The claim that placing SUGAR
on The free list will cheap the
cost Of that important article Of
general consumption is 40 trans
parently wrong that II IL surpris-
imu that Mr.. Wilson nn,N his nd.
visers have been 40 ensily deceiv-
Ell. Past experience warrants
the belief that the moment that
this country removes the tariff
duty ON stwur the foreign pro.
ducing countries viii place mn OK
port tax ON their shipments.
There is no more available sub
icct Of taxation In the grent su.
car-erowiny countries than sugar
itself. and an export tax could bo
easily and equitnblv collected.
The experience with coffee. which
now enters free Of all duty. should
he ~ sufficient wnrning to the FREQ
sugar advocates, Tho consumer
IN the United States now PAYS
more FOR the coffee he uses than
he paid when the delicious bean
pan,h n duty on entering the
country. Free coffee. therefore.
increnscd the coat Of the article
to consumers, and the experience
with free sugar will be idcniicn
, should Congress- ever he foolish
enough to ntgs u free sugar act
The sacrifice Of R55.OOO0 600 OF
anns,l revenue. which is collect
cd nt the minimum Of cost for col
lection and IL no eanitnbly dis
tribnted upon all classes that The
burden Of the tax is not felt
would he am economic mistake
which the Democratic Party
would have calise to regret before
n single year has passed. The
revenue from an income taS
would be uncertain IN amount, OK
tremely difficult and oxpensiy,
tn collect and world he burden
on comparatively small elemen
In the community that wot1ld b,
constamly endeavoring to evadt
II, There IN no other single com
modify that yields 80 large n rev
cnue as sugar. hence Il is nm idea
subject for tariff taxation for rev
enue only.
The plea that free sugar Is dc
sired by the people as n means o
furnishing the sugar trust is sub
timely ridiculous. The reiiner
would profit largely by being abl
10 import the raw snonr the
handle free Of dirty. M ihbv hein'
the only importers I'd he abl
to exact n much larrer mar,in .
profit oh the refined article ihni
7, they now do Moreover. the dee
truction Of the beet sroar indasir
hy free sugar would einilinai
the present competition of III
COG. .009 tons of beet product
which goes on the market IN
refined state. with the rho'rei q
the trust refneries. Pcatene.