Evening journal., 1922-08-21
Who Pays the Duty
On Imported Sugar?
Statistics Prove Cuba Lowers Prices When Duty High
and Raises on Low Tariff
(From the Phila. Public Ledger.

To the Editor of the Public Ledger
sir--Your recent editorial entitled
The Sugar kailders," like many
other articles against tariff on sugar
would lead one TO believe that the
people have TO pay into the pockets
of the domestic producers the full
duty on sugar, An investigation OF
the facts shows that this is not the
case.
Every time the tariff has been
raised the price of raw sugar has
decreased Immediately and every
, time the tariff has been lowered the
price has Increased. The reason for
this surprising fact is because the
controlling factor IN the price Of
sugar is its supply and demand and
not tariff
on October /. 1890 a duty of $2.75
was placed upon sugar Omitted
States Statistical Abstract.) For
nine years after this our Government
was receiving a revenue from this
source Of an average of more than
$50, ,000.000 a year. The American
public. believing that IL was paying
this amount to the American pro-
duoer, Influenced Congress to place
sugar upon the free list; but in
stead of the price of sugar being
lowered S275 per hundred pounds,
the Cubans forced up the price of
raw sugar to s2.72, so that the price
to the consumer remained virtually
the same. whereas the Government
received but s546,000 a year instead
of s5O.000.000, and the Cuban pro-
ducer pocketed the difference.
After four years, in 1894. sugar
was removed from the free list by
the Welson bill, making sugar duti-
able at 40 per cent ad yalorem. I'M
der this bill the duty amounted to
S1.07 per hundred pounds. The Gu
bans then reduced the price of sugar
from S3.44 to S2.76 per hundred. |
thus absorbing 70.sc of the duty we
imposed.
Three years later, under the
Dlngley bill. the duty was raised
to S1.6S5 per hundred. This amount
ed to an added duty of sic a hun
dred over the former ad valorem
IT, AHS NupdH pIouhttI AiAuitul-
ately reduced his price from SAFE
to S1.565. thus absorbing 76.7 per
cent Of the increased duty.
Six years later. under the terms of
he Cuban reciprocity treaty, we re-
iuced the duty 33.7c per hundred
on Cuban SO degrees sugar, and i'm
nediately the Cuban producers in
their price 15c per hundred
pounds, thus securing 46 per cent
IF the benefit of the reducton--and
who reaped the benefit of the re-
naming 50 per cent? The American
'eople certainly did not. All Cuban
Iugar has to go through the hands
II our seaboard refiners, who own
he bulk of Cuban estates, and the
etners Immediately raised the mar
'in between raw and refined sugar
SC per hundred pounds. The re-
ult was that the American people
'aid exactly as much per pound for
heir sugar after the reduction as
hey had been paying before, and the
american Government lost the bene-
It Of the revenue derived from the
iuty on sugar.
In 1913 the Underwood bill re-
iucod the tariff Ss.7c per hundred
pounds. The Cuban producer i'm
nediateiy increased the price of his
roduct 21c per hundred. thus secur-
lg an additional s14,00O.OOO a year.
In 1921 the Fordney Emergency
Ill increased the duty from S1.Ofl d
S1,60 per hundred pounds. I'm '
ediately upon this increase Of sec, D
lty Cuban producers lowered the S
ice from SS.SS to S2.92. G
Fs~sn these facts it IS seen that the u
merican consuming public has TO 81
~ only about 25 per cent OF the II
ity, the other 70 per cent being a.
lid by the Cuban producer. In T!