Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-05-29
EDITOR
EXPERT TESTIMONY"


The Hon. Dan Y. Stephens, from the imperia
state Of Nebraska, takes mp several pages of til,
Record merely with an ''exten
sion Of remarks" Cn the Underwood tariff bill
What the gentleman s original remarks, uncx
ended, were We know net but they may b,
guessed at from the following excerpts frGn hi.
extension relating 10 the sugar schedule:
One the big features Of the Underwood bill that
has caused much controversy is question of free
sugar after three with reduction at once of
% per cent. IT is admitted that sugar can be PRO
duced profitably in Cuba at . cents pound, whereas
il costs about 4 Y in Louisiana. Some claim
that free trade would destroy the eanc-sugar in
dusry but il is generally admitted that il will;
that the nductry is net legtimate that it would be
as reasonable 10 try 70 grow oranges in dollhouse
in Maine by giving it tariff protection to try
keep alive this Louisiana industry any longer 1t
is costing the American people ali is worth every
year in the extra price Of sugar. Mr.. Underwood
estimates that the American people pay at least
$115,000000 year extra Tor their sugar a result
of the tariff of nearly cents pound levied for ihe
protection of this industry That of money Is
almost enough to bry the whole Louisiana sugar n
dustry, including tie lands en- which the is
grown, and vet we have paid for this outfit once
every year for the last ten years. or total of con-
sideraby over billion dollars in the added price Of
nearly two cents pound on the sugar have
sumed. But even if impractical 20
keep this tariff sugar for the protection of this
cane-sugar industry it is admitted by all that
the beet-sugar product would drive it off the mar
ket anyway because the cost of beet-sugar produc
ton is much less.
The producers of beet sugar claim they need pro-
lection but matter of fact every plant in the
country is paying dividend and of them
cessively large dividends capital stock that is
half water. Not only is this true, but the
sugar refining trust has a controlling interest in
nearly all the beet-sugar plants in the country and
controls the price domestic sugar. Sugar is
sold at wholesale to the groceryman who lives with
in the shadow of beet-sugar factory at exactly the
import price of sugar plus the cost of freight from
the seaboard. The big question is, Can beet sugar
compete with foreign sugar? The facts show that
it can. The American people have moral obliga-
ton to pay dividend at least twice the capital
invested in this industry through protective tariff
This bill may squeeze out some of the water and
place the business on solid foundation, so it will
not have to be crying around congress for govern
ment partnership in Fleeing the people. An indus
try located the semiarid plains from 1900 to 1000
miles from the seaboard with high wall of freight
rates protecting it from competition with foreign
sugar much safer from disaster than the farmers
who now compete with the foreigner to whom he
sells his surplus wheat, corn and cotton. The beet
sugar factories will have plenty to do to supply the
sugar in this dprotected territory They do
not have TO sell sugar in a foreign market as does
the farmer and then it is unfair compel the farm
er who must compete with the foreigner to pay out
his profits to the sugar producers who have mar
ket at their doors for all the sugar they produce
The grain and stock farmer hires real American la
Dor and is entitled to square DEAL whereas this
protected trust-controlled, gambling industry en-
ploys Japanese, Chinese, Hindus and rag-tag labor
from whatever country it can get it. That is the
policy of every protecton-fatted industry we have
in this country.
/ would not want to destroy the beet-sugar indus
try and do not believe free sugar will destroy it.
1t will have three years to adjust itself to this new
tariff Let see what will happen in these three
years.