The Warner Amendment

The amendment to the tariff bill idopted by the House of Representatives in committee of the whole last week leaves sugar entircly free. Under the McKinley Act there is no duty except on refined sugars, and the revenue from this source is only nominal, amounting in 1893 to about $163,956, but in lieu of ttie duties removed there is a bounty on American sugars which draws from the treasury about $i5,ooo,oooannually. It will be seen, therefore, that should the Warner amendment be retained as a part of the new tariff law, it will not result, as rnany have supposed, in a further reduction of the revenue, but will save to the treasury practically the amount of the bounty, or $15,000,000. Besides, it will deal a sharp blow to one of the greatest monopolies fostered by the McKinley act. The real object of the McKinley act in retaining the duty on refined sugars was not revenue, but protection to the sugar trust monopoly. It removed all duty from raw materials, and then placed a duty on competing refined sugars and grocery sugars. The result has been to so enormously increase the profits of the monopoly as to cause even protectionists to cry out against its rapacity. The Philadelphia Press says: "This svveeping slaughter of industries is due simply and solely to the attempt of the owners and managers of the American Sugar Renning Cotnpany to declare dividends on $80,000,000 of watered capital when their plant was not worth over $20,000,000 to $25,000,000. On this shameful overvaluation the American Refining Company declared in 1892 a dividend of nine per cent. on the common and 7 per cent. on the preferred stock. In March, 1893, an extra dividend of 10 per cent., besides a quarterly dividend of 3 per cent., was declared. It is not surprising that pending a decisión by Congress on the sugar duty the annual meeting of this great monopoly adjourned a few days ago without making a report."