Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-17
Sugar.

The Senate turned down the pro-
posal to increase the tari6 duty on
sugar, Notwithstanding the plea that
sugar Is an agricultural product and the
pending tariff bill is intended primarily
TO aid the farmers Of America. Party
lines, coalition" lines, old guard
lines, all were smashed in the vote on
the srasndment offered by Senator HaE-
rison Of Mississippi, Democrat, to retain
the duty in the existing law instead Of
Boosting the rate as proposed by the
Senate finance committee. The Senate
committee propossl was . reduction OF
the rate placed Ia the pending bill By
the House.
Sugar Is an article Of general con-
sumption in the United States. The
American people have come to look
upon It as a necessity. The sugar
growers and manufacturers of domestic
sugar are so far in the minority, as COM
pared to the consumers Of sugar, that
the issue Of higher or lower sugar duties
takes on an unusual political COM
plexion In a country which has become
welded to the idea Of q protective tariff.
The sugar duty is perhaps the greatest
political talking point, the most easily
understood by the commemorative are
the voters-of any duty contained in
the whole tariff bill. The shadow Of
sugar consumers opposition in the
coming congressional elections fell
across the Senate, The Senate, 1t ap-
pears, has become eyen more suseep-
tible to such influences than the Reuse.
A. ell events, the majority Of the Senate
has turned down proposed increase
for the. American sugar producers which
was granted By the HeuEe. This may
be due In part to the fact that the
Senate Is acting on the tariff bin half
year or more later than the Eeuse and
TIE reaction to much In the tariff bill
has not set well with many Of the
voters.
Nine Of the Republican regulars broke
away and voted fer the Harrison
amendment. on the other hand half Q
desen Of the NeRWhAean insurgents, who
have Joined With tie pemeeFats - De-
feat Senate eempaittee RFepasals In the
tariff bill, fsH ewsg end voted VITA the
committee On the sugar duty. Feur
Democrats vetsd else with the com
rnittee for . higher sugar auty. The
tariR, after 81, 4 stu in large measure
n "1ocal ISSUE" as the vote In the SEN
etc has demonstrated.
It has been estimated BY the OPP
ponents Of the proposed increase In
sugar duty thst II weuid odd aS4,eoo, 900
annually to the sugar bill Of the AHser.
lean consumer, while sAiy abeut t5,5eo,-
600 would actually 90 To the beaeat Of
the American formers who gFew care
and sugar peets. Seine Of the opponents
Of the increased duty ere ready to vote
the sugar growers Of this country o
bounty If Necessary, believing that such
. course would give sddsa protection to
the American producers and OF the
same time weuld east the American
consumers far Less In the leHg run.
The fact that American sugar COM
panies producing domestic sugar have
eoAtinued to show profits under the
existing law, in many cases, vas
powerful influence against the proposed
increase in the Senate. A majority Of
the Senate Is net desirous of killing of
the sugar industry of Ameriea. But II
10 unwilling to have sugar prices boosted
70 all the people when it. is net con-
Nnced that the sugar companies abso-
lutely require additional aid.
The sugar duty has been one Of the
mest hotly contested phases Of the pend
ing tariff bill, Great interests have
aligned themselves en- one side or the
other Huge sums have been expended
BY the sugar lobby epposed TO an in-
crease Ia duties and by the lobby sup
porting the increase, although the for
ner expended far more than the latter.
The lobby with the biggest fund wen
IA the Senate, but it Is doubtful thst
such victory would have been forth
coming had IL not been for the spec
ter OF the consumer and voter, lobby or
10 lobby.