Evening star., 1925-06-15
The Sugar Tariff.

against a reduction of the tariff on
sugar, as recommended to him by
three members of the United States
Tariff Commission. The reduction
recommended would have amounted
to a half cent pound. The Tariff
Commission consists Of six members.
one of whom did not take part in the
sugar report, and two Of whom failed
to agree with the other three in their
findings.
The President has acted wisely. He
has acted as it was we'll understood he
would act, in fact, soon after the re-
port of the Tariff Commission was
conveyed to him nearly IL months ago.
He has been led to oppose the pro-
posed reduction in sugar duty by his
consideration for the American farm
er, the American consumer and the
United States Treasury.
American domestic production of
sugar amounts to something more
than a million tons annually. About
one-quarter of this is cane sugar.
produced almost entirely In Louisiana,
although small quantity comes
from Texas, and efforts are being
made to establish the industry In
Florida. The other three-quarters are
beet sugar, produced in the States of
the Middle West and the West; an
industry that Is growing, an industry
that today is really very considerable.
The consumption of sugar in this
country has jumped to about 100000
tons a year; the per capita consump-
tion has been figured at 103 pounds.
1t is clear, therefore, that we produce
little more than one fifth of what we
use. In recent years the consump-
tion of sugar has increased very
greatly; in fact, faster than the pro-
duction of domestic sugar, for only a
few years ago the domestic production
amounted to about one.fourth of what
is consumed here.
The Tariff Commissions majority
report found that the differentiaI be.
tween the cost of production in the
United States and Cuba had fallen be-
low the protective duty of 1.764 cents
per pound. 1t recommended that the
duty be reduced to 1902 cents per
pound. The minority report favored a
very slight reduction to 1.7616.
In announcing his decision against
a reduction of the sugar duty Presi-
dent Coolidge points out that the
wholesale price of sugar has declined.
and also the price to the consumer.
until sugar shows a much lower rate
of increase over the pre-war prices
than nearly all other commodities.
A question in the mind of the Presi-
dent is whether the direct and i'm
mediate benefit of a reduction of a
half cent a pound in the cost of
sugar to the consumer. provided, of
course, he got the full benefit of the
tariff reduction, would Offset the loss
which might be entailed in the end.
Should the proposed reduction result
in wiping out, or even seriously In.
juring the domestic production, the
American consumer would be at the
mercy of those who control the pro-
duction of sugar abroad and it's re.
finement here. AS long as this coun-
try produces a large part of the
amount of sugar that is consumed
here the chances for lower prices of
sugar are far better than if the do
mestic production were wiped out and
the duty on sugar reduced or even
done away with entirely.
The duty on sugar produces much
revenue, which is used to keep the
wheels of government moving. The
reduction in the duty proposed by the
ma jority of the board would have
reduced that revenue by S135 .0o0. 900.
This indirect form Of tax would have
had to be made up by some direct
form of taxation or some other indi-
rect tax. The hope of material reduc-
tions in the direct Federal taxes now
levied would have been dimmed by
just $135, 100000 had the President
approved the recommendation.
The sugar beet Is being grown more
and more by American farmers. 1t
furnishes a means of diversification
so much needed, particularly in Sec
| tions where wheat has been almost
the only crop in the past. Its produc-
| ton has become a really great indus.
| try in many of the States. And a
blow at this industry would be felt
seriously by a very large number OF
American farmers.