Sugar Trust Benefit

There seems to be no little confusión in the minds of some over the sugar schedule of the senate tariff bill, and the meaning of the socalled "differential" tax and how it operates to the advantage of the trust while the other proposed duty is chiefly a revenue duty. The explanation is as follows: The bill as it passed the senat carries a 40 per cent. ad valorum duty on all sugars and in ad'dition specific duty of é of a cent a pounc on refined sugar. This one-eight of a cent a pound is the socallec "differential" duty, and means simply "discriminating," or "special." Under the 40 per cent. ad valorum duty, the cost of every $100 worth of sugar that is consumed is raised to $140. This duty of Í40 on each $100 worth of sugar is chiefly a revenue duty for the reason that about nine-tenths of all he sugar consumed in this country s imported, only about one-tenth eing produced by our own peo)le. On all that is imported he government receives $40 on ach $ioo's worth, while on hat produced at home the lanters receive a protection to lie amount of 40 per cent. It.will e seen from this that while the ost of all sugar is increased by the uty, nine-tenths of the tax so levied ;oes into the treasury, and only onetenth to the home producers as protection. This duty is sanctioned by tariff reformers because it is so largely a revenue duty. Now as this duty Is laid upon the valué of the sugar, agiven quantity of refined sugar pays a larger tax than the same quantity of raw sugar, and henee operates to prevent the importation of refined sugars, and incidentally as a protection to our sugar renners. As a matter of fact it is not at all probable that under this provisión a single pound of refined sugar would be imported. Therefore, if the sugar trust would be satisfied with reasonable profits, it would furnish them abundance of protection. But they demand larger profits, and insist that the government shall aid them in filching the same from the consumers. Accordingly the trust demands that it be given an additional protection through a specific duty laid on refined sugar. Under the McKinley bilí they receive one-half a cent a pound and under the pending bill one-eighth of a cent. Now as this will keep out all foreign refined sugar the treasury will not be benefitted to the amount of a single dollar. The sugar trust will be able as a result of this differential tax to raise the price of every pound of sugar one-eighth of a cent, or twelve and a half cents on each one hundred pounds. This seems like a small thing to quarrel over, but when considered in the aggregate it means millions to the trust. It is estimated that this differential, together with the incidential protection resulting from the 40 per cent. tax will place in the pockets of the trust about $10,000,000 per annum, or about half as much as it now receives under the McKinley act. This infamous trust is already enormously rich and that it should be farther benefitted at the expense of the consumers, by the treachery of a cabol of purchased senators, is an outrage that should not be acquiesced in by the people.