The Hawaiian gazette., 1913-05-02
Keep Up the Fight.

"Fl0ods of letters are coming in to
Hawaii" said Secretary w. II. Bah.
bitt of the Sugar Protection Committee
yesterday, Indicating that busine
men oil over the country agree in sup
port of our campaign in behalf of the
-ugar Tariff. While all of them show
intention to support our efforts, in
some eases the predictions regarling
what congress will do are gloomy.
"At the, same time however, it is
apparent from all the advices, cable
and other, that we have received, that
Hawaii has a chance to get Tearing.
1t is evident from the hundreds of the
replies being sent here that we should
spare no effort at the present time to
keep UP the campaign for our rights,
All here who aid by showing what
prospective tariff legislation may mean
to Hawaii. will increase the chance of
fair consideration.
Among scores of letters received
yesterday at the Sugar Protection
Headquarters was a copy of letter
written by Senator George G. Perkins
of California, who saws, addressing
Wieland Bros, n San Francisco firm
Al OOACioc Va ouSoi.
90 | am in receipt of your communi.
cation of recent date protesting against
the abolition of reduction of the duty
on sugar. i do not think it necessary
for me to say that ] am opposed II
such action as is suggested. We, in
California, need not look beyond cur
own State for reasons for opposing
such action. We have seen n great
industry grow up under the protection
of the tariff, employing large capital
| thousands OF men and affordIng to our
| farmers a sure source of income, whicl
would be taken away from them abso
lutely if beet sugar refineries were
forced to close through competition
with imported sugar produced under
conditions with which our own produc
ers can not compete. If the price of su
oar is lowered | see, under present con
ditions of production, nothing lut al
end Of domesti" sugar production That
would be a calamity. With domestic
production killed, foreign sugar would
he likely I" increase in price. having
no competition, and the consumer
would not in my opinion, be likely tC
be better off than he is now.
Foreigners Would Contro'.
"In any event, the foreign producer
would control the market and set al
most any price he desired with ais
| lutte power to stihe at any time an eff
fort to reestablish sugar production il
this country. 1t seems clear TO mt
that the foreign producer would ado
to his price practically all of the duty
now paid, or at least just so much OF
it as would enable him to fix a pr G.
with which domestic producers coul.
not compete. Moreover, / do MOI
think free sugar good business propo
sition for the reason that the presen
duty gives us over $50,0O0,000 revenue
which is so widely distributed that N
one feels it. SugH was never eheape
than now, and without duty ! doub
very much whether the price wcul'
fall. Even if it should, the fall wonl'
be so slight that no consumer woulI
! from his own expense account, know
| that the duty had been taken of.
"The above are some of the reason
which induced me TO strive to restor
the sugar duty in the Dingley Bill. am
which irrel ~" 10 oppose with all M
power the abolition of duty at thi
,Ime. But | have no doubt that III
Democrats will reduce or abolish tn
duty and thus give body blow to a
industry which promises so much t
cur country