Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-05-02
Publicity Is Used.

The daily papers carry advertisements
of one feature of the contest between the
protectionists and the free traders. and
the protectionists also issue a printed
bulletin every day or two setting forth
their case.
The Domestic Sugar Products is the
name taken by a combination OF beet
growers OF seventeen states. the cane
growers and the sugar producers of Ha-
claims to be supported by voluntary con-
tributions by sugar producers and its bull
letins allege that the sugar refiners OF
the seaboard are interested in free sugar.
The alleged Wholesale Grocers' auSil-
iary also issues a printed bulletin.
President Wilson and Oscar Underwood
are for lower sugar duties and ultimate
free sugar. claiming this will reduce the
cost to the consumer. The protectionists
vigorously ress: this contention, claim
stroyed the reiiners will have things all
their own way; the deficit in the world s
supply of sugar will enhance the price
and the consumer will find prices in
creased within very few years.
Claims Of Beet Sugar Men.
The beet sugar men claim that 6l.Ov
farmers in this country planted 5JOoOu
acres of sugar beets last year, and that
try aggregates S2OOOO0.OOO The cane
sugar men claim an investment Of $780,
100000 in their industry It is claimed
that the total outlay of the beet Indus
try % farmers in wages, ETC.. in 1912.
was $62 100000, and in the cane industry
ST, ,OOo,O0O.
The output of beet sugar has increased
from 100 tons In 1880 to an estimated
CO, 900 tons for this year, or little more
than one-sixth of the total sugar require
ment of the United States.
Albert G.. Robinson. recognized sugar
statistician. estimates that the United
States will consume J. 800, 900 tons of sugar
in 1913, and that the domestic producers
will furnish one half Of the amount. Cuba
supplying the other half. He figures that
the best growers of the west will turn
out GOO, 600 tons; the cane growers, 100000
tons: Hawaii. $4,000; Porto Rico, 3U0.OOO;
Philippines, 10000.
Cuban Reciprocity Involved.
In the year 1903. before Cuban reci-
procity went into effect, the United States
sold to Cuba miscellaneous American
products to the value of 81. 100000. In
1912 the sales had increased to Sc. .O00. 900.
This growth was the result of Cuba ad-
mitting American goods on preferential
tariff in return for the United States
granting Cuba a preferential duty OF 20
per cent on her products coming here
The Cuban minister has already taken
up with the State Department the ques-
ton of readjustment OF trade relations ff
the proposed sugar tariff goes into effect.
In all the muck of disputation several
facts stand out, namely:
L. That sugar is now retailing at AZ
cents a pound which is as cheap as it is
sold anywhere in Europe. The protec-
tionists claim that this is due TO the COM
petition of United States Hawaiian. Porto
Rican and Philippines production. made
possible by the tariff Last winter Ameri-
can-raised beet sugar drove Cuban re-
fined sugar from the New York market
for while.
Investments at Stake.
>. That immense property values are
invested in the sugar industry in the
United States. Hawaii and the Philip
pines. which are conceded to be imperiled
by the proposed reduction and claimed
likely to be destroyed by final abolition
of the tariff duty.
. That trade with Cuba. which has
grown tremendously in all lines OF Ameri-
can products under the CUBAN reciprocity
treaty. will be in danger when the treaty
is negatived by free sugar. Cuba will
then no longer give the United States a
preferential tariff on the products of
Yankee farms. fisheries and mills.
Inc point OF ulOSl Interest 10 the aver
age man is whether reduction and aboli
ton OF duties will make a permanent low
ering of cost to the consumer. Erlietin
No. :s3 OF the committee OF wholesale
arocers formed to assist in obtaining
cheaper sugar for consumers through
reduction of duties on raw and refined
sugars" dated April aS. declares
..Those who seek to maintain A high
tariff on sugar for their especial benefit
contend, most ;ncorsistently. first, that
a lower tariff does not mean lower
price on sugar to consumers: secondly,
that they will be put out of business be-
cause of the low price at which they will
be forced to sell their product
I'm order to refute the persistent con-
tention of the opponents OF the tariff
re duction on sugar, that the consumer
win derive no benefit from such a reduc-
ton. but that the refiners will absorb it
all we present herewith the various de-
auctions made on this phase of the ques-
tion by Wallace p. Wiliett, a leading
American authority on sugar statistics,
before the Hardwick committee. I'm order
to demonstrate that the consumer bene-
fits not only to the full extent of any
tariff reduction. but also receives part
of the decreased cost of refining"
Contrasts in Table.
The table contrasts the cost OF sugar
for three years and three months. Janu-