Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-05-20


The argument in support of the removal of the
duty rests upon the assertion that the change would
greatly serve consumers by reducing the cost Of liy
ing In opposition it said that the duty, widely
d1lused in consumption and by means burden
some yields large amount ls52GO0000J of revenue;
tat il sustains one industry and has created and
Lhit up another; that indirectly it has Favored and
fostertd the sugar industry Of Hawaii which sup
plies nEe-tenths 'of the islands exports and that
its influence has been eXerted in the same way upon
TIE industry in Porto Rico and the Philippines The
preferential concession OF 20 per cent TO Cuba has
been the for preferential concessions grant
cd by Cuba these have mere ased our exports TO
the island If the duty should be removed our treaty
ef reciprocity with Cuba would die, and Cubas tar
III concessions would probably die with it.
ii is asserted by persons interested in or familiar
with the sugar industry of Hawaii that removal of
tie duty would il and thus greatly depress tie
island This is by far their greatest industry There
Is no available substitute for it. Local capital owns
and controls it, and there more than 10000 stock
holders owing to the higher cost of labor the ISL
ards they could not compete with Java if there were
10 tariff discrimination. The ruin of their sugar in
dlstry would decrease the purchasing power of The
islanders and very perceptiby reduce exports to,them
from the states.
What would our consumers gain by removal of the
duty? The per capita consumption here is about 80
bounds year but this includes the sugar used IN
confectionery condensed milk and other kinds OF
food the retail price of which would not be affected
Probably it is fair say the average directly con-
cerned is GO pounds The average duty is 4 little
less than y cents pound If the consumers gam
should be equal to the duty-and it might not belt
would amount to 80 cents year BY the reductlon
of one-ouarter he would profit to the extent OF Z2
cents.
Rut II il bv no means clear that the reduction or
removal would be the of his gain There
are wholesale merchants who predict that he would
gain nothing although $500 900 of revenue would
Re lost If the domestic cane and beet sugar indus
tries should be greatly depressed botted out, the
worlds output would be reduced and prices would pc
affected bv the old law of supply and demand KUN
Of Hawaiis industry would also reduce output sup
NV would be controlled exclusively by foreign pro-
ducers and by the confederated reners here, whose
interests would be served by free sugar and by de-
nression or destruction of the domestic cane ana
beet industries.
In our opinion the arguments against removal OF
the dutv on sugar far outweigh those in favor OF H.
and we think that those parts of the tariff bill which
relate to sugar should not be enacted
The husiness of the writer's in these reviews
o weigh impartially the evidence for and a@aln'
, particular attitude on current events or POI
les and to Judge according to sober and soun
.eason. The daily papers that support Mr VI
,on are naturally upholding his attitude ON 81
rar. but even his friends among the serious p
.iMlicals cannot defend the removal OF the tarl
IN this commodity.