The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1916-02-01

when he says, IL he is correctly re
ported. that the import duty on gu
gar is distinctly a revenue meas
urc."
Under the preferential treaty Gu,
ban sugar testing ninety-six degrees
now pays IN import duty of 1.004s
cents per pound. When reGners buy
Cuban sugar the entire tax goes tc
the government, but when they pay
substantially the same price for su,
gars from Porto Rico, Hawaii and
the Philippine Islands the govern,
mont gets nothing and the entire ben,
eft goes to the raw sugar producer,
To this extent then the sugar tax Is
protective. And it is no less protec,
tive when 1t enables the Louisiana
sugar interests and the beet sugar In
tercsts to add the full amount OF
the import duty to their selling price
which the consumers pay and out OF
which the government does not get a
cent.
When the tariff law of 1913 was
enacted it was the purpose of Con-
gress to protect these sugar interests
to the extent of the import duty now
paid. up to May 1. 1916. and NO
longer. Under normal conditions SUI
gar would go on the free list at that
time. The d%eplorable European war
has not given the protected sugar in
terests any better standing with the
American people, but the war has
cut off revenues necessary for the
proper support of the government.
II therefore appears that revenue
and not protection is the subject
holding the largest interest for the
Congress, and hence. we beg to
suggest a sugar tax that will yield an
nually more than $40.000.00 of
revenue in excess Of the amount
which might be obtained by postpon-
Ing the effective date of the present
sugar schedule, and without any in
crease in cost to the consumer over
present cost. This tax contemplates
no change in the present act, but the
enactment of a new law to become
effective May l.. 1916. placing a pro
ducer's tax on all sugars sold for con-
sumption in this country equal to the
present import duty which goes out
on that date.
The statistical reports for the fiscal
year ending June 80, 1915, show a
collection of 49.244.12S.34 on ac-
count of sugar import duties. Out
Of this sum there was refunded to ex-
porters under the ninety-nine per
cent draw back provision of the tar
in law, S5,397, 1929, leaving a net
amount of $43,S46,755.05 actually
received into the treasury from this
source.
The home consumption of refined
sugar for the year 1914 was 1850
S27 long tons. Assuming that the
demand will be no greater hereafter
than heretofore, a producers tax
equal to the present import duty on
Cuban sugars would yield to the
treasury more than SS4,O0O,OO an
nually, without, as we have said, any
additional cost to the consumer, for
the obvious reason that all sugar pro-
ducers Of this country and Il insu-
lar possessions add the import duty
to the selling price Of their product.
Moreover, the tax suggested would
work no hardship to the protected SUI
gar interests, since, after the first day
OF Nay, 1916, they would enjoy no
further governmental favor and we
see no reason why they should now
be permitted to capitalize the gov
ernment's necessities for their own
benefit.
The producers tax herein suggest
ed would not only be consistent with
| the attitude Of the last Congress, but
would also provide n vast revenue SO
needful at this particular time.