Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-05-20
Sugar Duties.

sugar opCleS IN the new tafif1 DILL IN
creasing the rate of the existing law,
have caused an uproar. The opposition
to the increases comes mainly from the
sugar producers of Cuba and from large
consumers of sugar in the United States.
The demand for the increases Is made
by the producers of sugar beets and
cane sugar within the boundaries of
continental United States.
The situation with regard to the
tariff on sugar is perhaps the most COM
plicated which confronts the legislators
In 1928, Continental United States pro-
duced 20.82 per cent of the sugar used
in this country. Hawaii, Porto Rico
and the Virgin Islands supplied 23.l
per cent; the Philippine Islands $50 per
cent. Cuba supplied us with 47.05 per
cent, and foreign sugar made up the re-
naming SO per cent. Sugar from Ha
waii, the Philippines and other island
possessions of the United States come
into this country duty free. Sugar from
Cuba, while it pays duty, has prefer
entail rate growing out OF the reciproc-
ity agreement entered into between the
United States and Cuba after the
Spanish American War. in which Cuba
obtained its freedom with the aid of
the United States.
The domestic producers of sugar not
only have to meet the competition Of
Cuban sugar, which has preferential
status so far as the duty is concerned,
but they have also to meet the COM
petition of sugar from Hawaii, the
Philippines and the other island pos
sessions of this country which pay no
duty. On the one hand are the farm
ers in America, who produce sugar
beets and cane sugar in Louisiana and
Florida. On the other hand is the
great consuming American public, which
must have sugar for its coffee every day.
sumers Of sugar, including the farmers
as we'll as the rest Of the population, are
to be asked to pay more for their sugar
or whether the producers Of sugar In
The United States are to be given a
price for their sugar which will enable
them, not only to earn a fairer re-
turn, but also encourage them to in
crease their production.
The new tariff bill as drafted by
the Republican members OF the ways
and means committee of the House
grants an increase in the duty on
sugar 1t does not, however, impose
any duty on sugar which comes in from
the Philippines and Hawaii, nor does 1t
restrict the amount which may be ship
ped in duty free from those islands.
The American beet and cane producers
will have to meet the Hawaiian and
Philippine competition just as under
the present Law. The increased duty
on sugar, therefore is likely to aid the
sugar producers In both the Philippines
and Hawaii, giving them a still greater
preference over the sugar producers in
Cuba.
1t has been variously estimated that
the proposed increase on sugar will add
to the sugar bill of the American
public something between 500, 000,-
900 and $15o,oooooo annually. At
the same time 1t is urged that
the increased duty will not benefit
to any very great extent the American
producers Of sugar because there IS no
restriction on the flood of Philippine,
Hawaiian and Porto Rican sugar.
Cuban sugar in the last ten years
has constituted from 6b.43 to 58l8 per
cent Of the sugar Consumed in the United
States. About rs per cent Of the Cuban
sugar crop is marketed in this country,
and about 100000 OF American
capital is invested in the Cuban sugar
industry. Under the conditions outlined
it is clear that there will be real battle
in Congress over this proposed increase
in sugar duties. Indeed the sugar Sched-
ule as written in the Hawley tariff Dill
stands in greater danger of amendment,
perhaps. than other features of the bill.