Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-25

Few tears were shed over the defeat
of the sugar tariff measure in the SEN
ate. While some warnings are sounded
against smothering an infant industry,
the majority feel that the move was
sound economics.
THE margin by which the Harrison
amendment providing against any in
crease in duties on raw sugar was car
ried in the Senate" according to the
New York Sun, "leaves the sugar raid
ers little hope of anything to be gained
by means of conference. Instead of the
expected seven Democratic votes for in
crease from the present duties to 2.20
and 2.75 cents pound, there were only
four. Instead of the expected dozen
Republican votes for the Harrison
amendment, there were 10. The House
bill, providing duties of 2.40 cents on
Cuban sugar and 3 rents on sugar from
other countries, will be unacceptable to
conferees chosen by Senate that voted
48 to 38 for the existing duties of 1.76
cents on Cuban sugar and 2.20 cents on
world sugar. The answer of the
Senate is SO firm negative that it
ought to be accepted as final by those
who have made the unavailing raid
against the consumers of sugar"
Recognizing in the Senate's action "a
notable victory for sound economies
and for consumers rights" the At
lanta Journal calls it "the most en-
phatic and the most meaningful repulse
that special privilege has met with in
the present session Of Congress" and
looks upon the proposed taxation as
more unjust than that which stirred
the founders of the Nation to revolt
against stupid British King"
Observing that Senator Smoot an
nounces that he will endeavor to get a
small advance in rates for the sugar
enacted into law" the Memphis Com
mercial-Appeal remarks that "t!,is is
interesting in its revelation OF the fact
that the tariff autocrats are not as au-
tocratic as they once were" The Provi-
dence Journal points out that how
ever much tariff protection they might
be granted or however large a. bounty
for sugar might be, the American peo-
pie doubtless would have to rely chiefly
upon foreign growers for their supply"
The Kansas City Star asserts that the
country cannot afford to pay heavily
for developing an industry with such
scant possibilities as that of sugar pro-
duction."
"The original House duties" as
viewed by the Richmond News-Leader,
would have added $150,000,00 yearly
to the country's sugar bill. whereas the
gain to the producers would have been
only $26 5000 900, and that would have
gone exclusively to the 3 per cent of
the farmers who grow sugar. The pres
ent tariff yields $43, 000,000 to the grow
ers, but costs the farming population of
the country $4,000, 000-a net loss of
$4,000, 900 a year" On the subject of
bounty, the Detroit News comments:
1T worked in the early nineties, when
paying bounties to the cane-Sugar peo-
pie of Louisiana and to a few sugar
beet producers. With beet sugar being
made on a much larger scale, the Gov
eminent overhead with a bounty plan
today would be large item. The dan
ger of frauds also would be widespread
and grave"
N defense of sugar demands, the
Butte Montana Standard says: THE
Senate might have done worse. Per-
haps many of its members realize that.
Still, there will be disappointment that
some workable scheme could not have
been evolved which would encourage
American farmers to raise more sugar.
Taken by and large, there is probably
no land in the world better suited to
the production of beet sugar than GER
tain vast areas of the United States.
including large districts of Montana.
And yet the United States raises only