Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 2, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 January 1894 — FOXY SUGAR TRUST. [ARTICLE]

FOXY SUGAR TRUST.

MAS IT TRICKED THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE? Tro»t Statistics from Willett A Gr»y’« Statistical Sugar Trade Journal—McKinley’* Hard Lea* on—Sped tic Tariff Duties Cheat the People.

Samples of Protection. Just why the Ways and Means Committee left i cent per pound duty on refined sugar, is a mystery to those who are unacquainted with the insidious workings of our pet and spoilei trusts. It was generally known that the sugar trust secured its i cent duty from McKinley and Aldrich by corruption and bribery. It was also known that this trust had made $15,000,000 or $20,000,000 a year out of this duty, besides half as much more of legitimate profits. It was known, too, that the total labor cost of refining sugar is less than 1-7 cent per pound and as low as in any other country. Then, why did Wilson leave such a duty? There is but one explanation consistent with the facts and with the undisputed integrity and honor of Mr. Wilson and his committee—the duty is the result of misrepresentations made to the committee. Otherwise, if the committee had intended to levy a duty for revenue or to protect sugar growers, it would certainly have placed the same duty on raw as on refined sugar. The misrepresentation probably consisted in leading the committee to believe that the export duty paid refiners in foreign countries would put our refiners at a disadvantage, unless they were protected by a small duty. The sugar trust presented statistics to this effect. This is evident from what appeared in Willett & Gray's Statistical Sugar Trade Journal of Sept. 28. After stating that Germany is paying a bounty of 214 cents per 100 pounds on the exportation of granulated sugar, from Aug. 1,1802, to July 31, 1805, this journal continues: "Any reduction of present duty on refined sugars would oertainly produce an interesting conditiou of things in the sugar trade, for in order to compete with Germany, for instance, at a disadvantage of 214 cents per 100 lbs. in this one respect, American refiners might be obliged to transfer their refineries to Germany, or if the business continued here it would be at the expense of all the wholesale grocers, who would be obliged to forego the selling of American sugars, while the American refiners would come into close relations with the retail grocers direct. This would mean ‘chaos’ to the refinedsugar trade, and would not cheapen sugar to the consumer, because refiners everywhere would be in constant competition for raw sugars with which to supply America with refined, and prices of raws would rule at a much higher average price than now.” If it was upon information of this kind that Wilson decided to leave a duty on refined sugar, the matter should be reconsidered. The Berlin Zuckerindustrle at once took Willett & Gray to task and showed the falsity of their figures. It showed that German refiners, when they purchase raw sugars, have to pay an export bounty on them of what is equivalent to l!> cents per 100 pounds on refined sugar—leaving a net premium of only 64 cents per 100 pounds to exporters of refined sugar. This bounty of 1-6 cent per pound will only pay one-third of the freight across the Atlantio. Without any duty, then, our refiners would have a natural protection of 4 cent per pound even as against the most favored refiners in Europe. That they could compete oven without this natural protection is evident from what Willett & Gray’s journal told us, on Juno 10 last, when it ridiculed Germany’s little refineries, the largest of which could only melt 1,000 barrels a day, while three refineries in this country were constantly melting 14,500 barrels per day. It laughed at the idea of preventing “the economies which come from consolidating the business” by the attempt “to divide up the business into German sized companies. ” Beyond a doubt sugar is refined as cheaply, and probably more cheaply, in this than in anv other country. It may be well to call the attention of sugar producers to the Inadvertent admission of this semi-official organ of t.he sugar trust that “prices of raws would rule at a much higher average price than now," “because refiners everywhere would be in constant competition, ” if the duty were abolished and “chaos” should reign—that is, If the power of the trust to “regulate” prices of both raw and refined sugars were taken away, as it would be by the removal of a duty. But this journal does not mind “putting its foot in it” occasionally, If by so doing it can save any part of the duty on refined sugar. It has thrown its reputation as a statistical journal “to the dogs" in its desperate efforts to mislead Congress and to preserve its right to export $20,000,000 a year from our sugar consumers—as the 4 cent per pound enables it to do. As’ another example of the bad effect upon statistics, of mixing them up with protection and trusts, take the last issue of this same sugar journal (Dec. 28). On page five, it is stated that “making up the average prices for the year we find that centrifugals have averaged 3.08 c per lb., while granulated has averaged 4.84 c per lb., a difference of 1.16 c per lb., which has been the usual difference, and was the usual difference ton years ago, when the business was entirely in the hands of independent refiners." Turning back to page 3 we find tables giving weekly quotations of (96 degrees centrifugal) and refined (granulated) for the last ten yea s. These show that during the year 1884 the average difference between the prices of raw and refined sugars was less than 13-16. or about 4-5 cent per pound, /it no time in 1855 was the difference as great as 1 cent, and the average for the whole year was 5-8, or .634 cent. In 1886 the average difference was .718 cent ,and in 1887, the last year before the trust got control of the refineries, the average difference was .685 cent. The average differenc' for the next two years—lßßß and 1890—was 14 cents. Thus is this statistical journal condemned out of its own mouth. During the last four or five months scarcely a number of this journal has appeared that did not contain unfair or inaccurate statements, intended to deceive the legislators at Washington. This is but one of the pernicious effects of protection. Take away the duty which protects this greedy, audacious, law-defying trust, and, beside* bfieaper sugar, we will have more accurate and reliable statistics.—Byron W. Holt.

Cheat* the People. In specific tariff duties there is a form of robbery which is generally concealed from public view. In all manufactures the cost of production is being lowered from year to year. Let a specific duty which amouuts to 10 per cent, ad valorem remain unchanged for'twenty years and it may be 100 per cent. Carnegie’s boast is that his mills can turn out. more steel no>v with 2,00 b men than they could ten years ago with 10,000. That is an example. Carpets which would have cost $5 a yard fifty

years ago can now be made for $1 or less. A specific duty of $2.50 a yard in Hamilton's tariff, or say 50 per cent., would now be 240 per cent. Specific duties prevent the people from getting the benefit of improved processes and lower cost of production. Ad valorem duties follow the reduced cost without being obliged to wait for the people to find out their disadvantage and to get mad enough to defeat the lobby. Specific duties are the protected manufacturer’s pet arrangement. Ad valorem duties are much safer for the people.—St. Louis Republic.

A Great Fight. The war is on! The thousands of selfish interests that have bsen fastening on to our body politic for many years are forming in solid phalanx for the fight. On one hand are the people whose very vitals have been sucked dry in order that the privileged might revel in luxury. On the other side stand the privileged classes, who will fight for their privileges until the last one has gone down. It will be a great and, perhaps, awful contest, for be it known that the privileged classes believe in the entoroement of law only so long as those laws are framed to suit them. It will be a great fight on the right of men to get full value foi their money. We of the producing class work for low wages and pay high prices for the necessities of life. The privileged clastes, through the assistance of Government, get high prices for the things that have been made at low wages. Thus, all the milk in the eocoanut flows to thorn, while we get the husks. It will be a great fight. In the end the common people will win, and the trusts and other iniquitous designs to rob the laborers of the fruits of their toil will go to the wall. But it will be a great fight.—National Economist.

Larger Kevenue* from Lower Rate*. One of the Republican scarecrows that are now being used to frighten Democrats away from tariff reform is a so-called ‘estimate” that the Wilson bill will cut down revenues $70,000,000. How unreliable —indeed how absurdsuch an estimate is may be seen by a casual glance at the official statistics of the government during the last fifty years. Indeed the refutation of this absurd “estimate" is found in' the daily experience of every retail merchant. When these men cut prioes for holiday trade or any special sale they expect to more than make up the difference in price by the increased number of sales. The i-ame Is true of importations. With a lower rate of duty importations art often so stimulated that the net receints of revenue are greatly increased. The Walker tariff of 1842 is a good illustration. When this low tariff bill was passed in 1846 the collections increased $.->,< 0!),000 the first year, and in t3n years increased from $26,000,000 to $61,000,000. —Oakland County Post

McKinley'* Hurd Lrnon. At last we have evidence that McKinley did learn something, after all, from the terrible boating his party got under his leadership in 1890 and 1892. In his message to the Ohio Legislature on Monday ho warned the majority that it would be hold by the people to the strictest accountability. He said, “it should keep the expenses safely within the revenues,” evidently having in mind the awful blunder ho and his party made in Congress in bankrupting the Treasury. “There should be no inoiease in the rate of taxation," he added, as though to say, “Take warning by me and my bill and avoid the fate that overtook me. ” The Governor’s formal inauguration will not occur until next Week, when, it is reported, he will take occasion to deliver himself on national politics. We shall hope to see him then draw further lessons of reproof and repentance from his own experience.—New York Post.

Not Afraid of Wilson. Neither the panic nor tho fear of a reduction of the tariff has bad much effect on the cotton mills of tho country. Some of,those in the East were stopped a few days for repairs, but thoy were all running last week, and there isn't* cotton mill in the United States that dida t earn at least 6 per cent, during the year on the capital invested. The cotton mills of the South have for tho most part done considerably better than that. According to the Chronicle of Augusta, Ga., tho six mills in that city and vicinity have paid, or will pay, from 6 to 10 per cent, in dividends on thoir capital, amounting to $4,600,000, and it must be remembered that the companies are capitalized for considerably more than is actually invested in the works. One of them increased its capital 50 per cent, and will pay a 3 per cent, semi-annual dividend. Mockery of Overproduction. The ability of any industry to invade the markets of other countries implies its ability to hold the market of its own country against the same competitors, and ft is a mockery to talk of overproduction as long as there are so many millions of hungry people to feed and so many millions of ill-clad people to clothe, and only a law of Congress to forbid that exchange of the products of labor by which both ourselves and they could enjoy more of the goods and necessaries of life. —Wm. L. Wilson, in the Forum. Meaning of Free Wool. Free wool means cheaper and better clothing for our people and a better market and higher prices for wool. The protectionist howlers know it as well as the Democrats. Hence their distress lest the Wilson bill will take effect before the next wool clip is marketed. Nothing but delay can save the calamity lies from refutation.

Taxation and Kobhery. When the law compels me to contribute my just quota to the support of government, it is taxation; when it compels me to contribute to the support of any private enterprise, it is robbery. The first is a tariff so revenue; the second is a tariff for protection— Wm. L. Wilson, in the Forum. The Wilson 11111. The one urgent need of the country at the present time is to have the tariff settled.—Philadelphia Times. It is said that there is some accidental protection in the Wilson bill. Well, let it go at that. Pass it. Get it out of the way!—Atlanta Constitution. The House has the new tariff bill. If it knows what is good for itself and the country it will pass it on to the Senate in a hurry.—Atlanta Journal. “It is the uncertainty that hurts.” It was the uncertainty that hurt last fall when the repeal bill was undergoing prolonged and useless discussion. It will be the uncertainty that kills if something is not soon done to relieve it.—Washington Post. Until confidence, ba«ed upon fully known conditions, can be established either by the defeat or the passage of the Wilson bill, business depression and suffering will unquestionably abide with us. The Wilson bill should be promptly killed or passed.—Philadelphia Telegraph.