OCR Text |
Show T i V. i THE CITIZEN 4 -- , : PUBLIC SUGAR IMPORTERS FOOL THE ' . , The big refiners of imported sugar and interests closely allied with them control over 50 per cent of the entire production of sugar in Cuba. These interests are carrying on a widespread propaganda for a reduction in the tariff ort;"Cul?an sugar. In support of the claim- that the duty on this sugar should be reduced they make the assertion that the rate of duty into effect on May 28, imposed by the' emergency tariff law, which went into the United 1921, and increased the cost of bringing Cuban sugar of a cent a pound, adds $162,000,000 a year to the States by sugar bill of the American people. To show how this figure is arrived at, we quote from a bulletin issued and disby the American Producers of Cuban Sugar on January 16, 1922, tributed throughout the country. This bulletin contains the following statement : The tariff of $1.60 a hundred pounds on Cuban sugar, which it is now proposed to make permanent, means a tax of $162,000,000 annually on the sugar consumed in the country. Of this $162,000,000 tax, is paid to the government as duty on Cuban sugar and then paid of the sugar you use in by the American consumer as a part of the price is in reality your coffee or eat in your candy. The balance, or $72,000,000, a more direct tax, which the consumer pays to the domestic sugar producer. This statement means, if it means anything, that the cost to the consumer of all the sugar he buys, whether that sugar was imported and paid a duty or was produced duty free in the United States, is 1.6 cents a and is pound higher than it would be if there were no import duty, of a cent higher than it would be if the emergency tariff law had . not been put in force last May. An examination of the records of the sugar market shows condusive- ly that there was no increase in the price of sugar when the emergency tariff went into effect. The last sale of sugar before the tariff act became law, and the first sale after it became.law, were both made at (exactly the same price. Immediately thereafter the price declined and the general trend of prices continued downward until the very end of the year, in spite of the strenuous efforts of the Cuban sugar importers to prevent this - six-tent- hs , $90,-000,0- 00 six-tent- hs . decline. The cost and freight price of Cuban sugar (that is the price before of a cent a payment of the duty) did decline, however, exactly pound as soon as the emergency tariff act became law. The Cuban producer received that much less for his sugar. This shows clearly enough who paid the difference in duty. Chi this point, however, we have the who evidence of the same American Producers of Cuban Sugar, claimed in their bulletin of January 16 that the increase in duty was taking millions out of the pockets of American sugar consumers. In another bulletin, dated January 23, 1922, one week after the first one, they make the following statement: Under this (Emergency Tariff) act the producer in Cuba has been compelled to absorb this additional duty of 60 cents per hundred pounds. The day before this act was signed by President Harding, Cuban sugars were selling at 3.875 cents, and on the following day at 3.275 cents, or a decrease of 60 cents per hundred pounds. It is estimated that the coming into force of this act depreciated the value of the raw sugar then in Cuba about $35,000,000. It requires no very brilliant mind to understand that if the foreign producers or importers of sugar, pay the tariff it cannot be paid by American consumers, and vice versa. Evidently the publicity experts of the sugar importing interests place a low estimate on the intelligence of the American public. Possibly the two contradictory bulletins were intended for circulation in different quarters one to impress the ordinary citizen with the iniquity of the tariff on sugar and .the other to move Congress to pity over the sufferings of the great corporations that control the bulk of the Cuban sugar crop. The statement that the increase in the tariff on Cuban sugar imposed by the emergency tariff law has been paid by the foreigner importing this sugar into the United States has been made over and over again by the very interests who are seeking to abolish this tariff. A commercial mission sent to Washington from Cuba last summer submitted to Congress six-tent- hs I j I ; J . . I ' H ' through the Department of State a brief on the Cuban sugar( which contains this statement: On May 27, 1921, Cuba was selling her sugar at 3.875 pound. The Emergency Tariff act was signed by. President the night of the 27th and went into effect on the 28th; i thereafter Cuban sugar depreciated to the extent of 60 cents dred pounds, which is exactly the difference between the old new tariff rate on sugar for Cuba, equivalent to about J Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee on 1921, Edwin F. Atkins, who controls some of the largest Cuba, and who has been a consistent opponent of tariff pr American grown sugar, said that the Cuban producers had pajj creased duty. On the same occasion, H. A. Rubino, represent big Cuban sugar company controlled by an American refiner, said Since the enactment of the Fordney Emergency Tariff. well as full-dusugars, have sold on a price basis equivalent to of a j sugars and at no time has the increased tariff of borne by the American consumer. The increased tariff, therein all cases been borne by the Cuban producer. Many other statements to the same effect made by the very are seeking to have the tariff on sugar reduced or removed could but one or two simple questions will be sufficient to show the behind their agitation : If the tariff on sugar is paid by the consumer and does not price paid by the foreign importer, why are these great sugars corporations raising such an outcry for the reduction of the tarif! they ever before known to show such solicitude for the constnn they make any move to help him in 1920, when, after home-gu- n was off the market, the price of Cuban raw sugar was pushed; cents a pound and refined sugar cost the consumer 25 to 35 cents? know the answer to these questions. C ty six-tent- hs . LIGHT ON THE SOLDIERS BONUS BILL What has been vicariously promulgated as all things irn from a pawn shop steal to a generous and timely gift by a ciative people and back again to a most despicable scramble the national treasury placing a premium on patriotism to f ture generations such is the much touted, much bemoanei praised and much advertised Soldiers Bonus Bill. This case lets tell what it all means. To the Yank who got in early and stayed late, the which now seems certain ;to pass the senate in form not culated as to be unable to shake hands with its proponents mean a sum sufficient to set him up in business in a small to secure his future independence if he invests it wisely. even, if very circumspect, be enabled to compete with Jap rest and other forms of small establishments conducted by thous lx b toe Hf foreigners. If he served overseas for the full duration of the war h draw down a maximum in cash of $958.25. If he served for the same period he could draw a maximum of $755. t words if he served overseas he. would draw $1.25 a day I55' bonus already paid; and if he served at home he would get day leiss the same $60. There are features of the bill whereby the soldier or draw nearly twice as much if he chooses not to take cash. A get this additional cash if he used it to pay his way through Five different plans of compensation are provided. Th addition to the cash plan, are the the adjusted service or paid-u- p endowment insurance plan, the vocational tfl plan, the farm or home aid plan and the land settled SJ& : plan. The adjusted service certificate or insurance J end nature of a twenty-yea- r insurance policy. At the of years the veteran would receive in cash 140 per cent would receive if he took a cash payment at once, plus interest. Thus, if he served overseas he would draw down in cash at the end of the twenty-yea- r period, plus 4)4 t |