Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 February 1892 — "WE EAT MORE SUGAR. [ARTICLE]

"WE EAT MORE SUGAR.

REMOVAL Or THE DOTY LOWERS PRICES. A Re*»cthm 1b Price Causes an Increase la Sugar Consumption—Polling Off In the Pig Iron Production—High Tariff Methods. How ftee Sugar Works. Free sugar 4s continuing to teach the people the truth about the tariff. Messrs. Willett A Gray, of New York, the greatest authority in the country dn sugar statistics, have recently published their azuau«l statement showing the sugar consumption of the United States, and their figures show how the cheapness of sugar has increased the consumption of that article. Raw sugar became free on April 1, 1891, and during the remaining nifie months of the year the consumption of sugar was enormously increased. The total consumption for three years was as follows: Tons 3888 1,408,701 5090., 1,622,781 18ai„ ... 1,885,994 The of .1891 over the previous year was 363,263 tons, while the in-crease-of 1890 over 1889 was oniy 83,030 tons. . Expressed in percentages the matter stands thus: Last year we consumed 23.86 per cent, more sugar than in 1890, but in 189!) we consumed only 6.76 per cent, mor-j than in 1889. In 1890 we consumed 5»L56 pounds of sugar for each individual; year, with free sugar three-fourths of the year, each ■one of >us made away with 67.46 pounds. This increase of consumption was directly oaused by lover prices. On the very day that the duc-y was lowered 24 cents, granulated sugar fell 2 cents per pound, and prices have since been from 2 to 2J cents lower fit wholesale, and still more at retail. The people now plainly see that they h ive for years been paying a big tariff tax bn sugar. If they will study the following table of prices, remembering that sugar can be refined as cheaply here as anywhere, they may confirm their suspicions. The prices 'in London are taken from the quotations in the .first iitsue .of the London Economist for etch month. The prices in New York are from the American Grocer, and are enraged for each month:

PRICER GRANULATED BUGA*. (CXS PER LB.). 1889. Eng. .U. 8. Ditt. Duty. January... 9.63 7.0) 3.52 S.UC March....... .8.41 .7Ai 3.84 3.00 June..... 4.93 9.U0 4.13 3.00 September 3.65 8..9 4.47 3.00 November 3.85 6.92 4.07 3.00 December.. .2.85 6.81 3.98 3.00 1890. January........... 3.97 6.48 8.51 0.00 March ~...3.09 6.31 3.v2 3.00 June 3.09 6.50 3.41 8.00 5eptember.......3.53 6.62 3.09 8.00 November 3.2 J 6.21 2.92 8.00 December 3.22 6.04 2.82 8.00 1891. January 3.09 6.20 8.11 8.00 March ... 3 22 6.50 8.28 8100 June. 3.29 -416 .84 .50 September 3.29 4.35 1.06 . 50 Add about 4 cent per pound to the duty for the cost of importing sugar from England, and see how nearly the home price corresponds to the foreign price, with the duty added. From 1887 to 189 G, Inclusive, over $220,000,000 duty was oolleeted on sugar. Add to this the increased price on the sugar produced in this country (about one-eighth of all consumed here), and it is seen that the consumers of sugar have been paying $65,000,000 a year of tariff tax, besides the wholesalers’, jobbers’, and retailers’ profits on this amount, a total of between $5 and $6 per family tax on this one article. But this is not the only salutary lesson to be learned from the duty on sugar. This duty well illustrates the power granted by tariffs to home manufacturers to levy-still further tribute upon consumers. Previous to April, 1891, the average duty on raw sugar was about 1J cents. As our refiners get their raw sugar in the same markets as English refiners, and as the cost of refining is nowhere less than here, the price of sugar here, even under the -old tariff, ought not to have exceeded the foreign price by more than 2 cents per pound. The refiners, however, were protected by a duty of three cents and by cost of transportation from Europe about 4 cent per pound. As is well known, the leading refiners formed a trust in 1887 which prevented internal competition by closing up many of their refineries, by limiting the production of others, and by coming to “understandings” with .the most of those not in the trust. In this way, as Is shown by the abov-e table, they kept the price on an average of about 34 cents above the foreign price and obtained a clear profit of about 14 cent per pound or between $26,000,000 and $30,000,000 per year. That the profits were exorbitant was demonstrated by the Senate Committee, of New York., which investigated this trust in 1888. Now, with raw sugar free, the prices here and in England should agree. But the refiners are still protected by a duty of 4 cent and the cost of -transportation. Hence the priee is kept about 1 cent above the -price abroad, while it is estimated that the refineries in the trust made about $5,000,000 in 1891. But this profit is unsatisfactory to men accustomed to a far greater one, and on Jan. 13 the stockholders of the American Sugar Refining Company approved the recommendation of the directors to increase the -capital stock from $50,000,000 to $75,000,000. It is well understood that the $25,000,000 increase is for the purpose of buying up the independent plants. The President of the trust said, In an interview: “We want the $25,000,000 to enlarge our plants. Whether our system shall be increased by purchase or by construction remains to be seen. At ttie present time there are four large concerns outside of the .American company. They are the Revere of Boston, and the Spreckles, Harris: n, and Knight of Philadelphia. ” There is really, however, but little competition from any except the Spreckles company. The trust will feel more secure when it has no rival, and when it is able to buy up and close up new refineries. as it is supposed to have done with the one recently built in Baltimore. Some unknown persons are said to have gotten control of the stock of this company and to have mysteriously cloßed it. The remaining duty of 4 cent on refined sugar is yielding no revenue to the Government and serves no purpose except to enable the sugar trust to continue to exact large profits from the consumers of sugar.