OCR Text |
Show CONGRESSMAN JOS, HOWELL MAKES BRILLIANT ADDRESS 4t Utah's Congressman Makes Strong Plea for the American Farmer, Farm-er, and' Protests Against Pestructive Methods of Democratic Democrat-ic Party. 'The Beet Sugar Industry Vindicates the "Wisdom of the Protective Policy." Free Sugar Would Cripple Inter-ests Inter-ests of Over Fifteen States,. Text of Address in Full., X Mr. Chairman, from whenco comes the doctrine on which this doatruct-Iv doatruct-Iv till la based? What national policy pol-icy oemands this wanton and disastrous disas-trous blow to the sugar Industry ot this country? Can it bo possible that this legislation points out tho new course which tho Democratic Party Is to follow? Or Is this a piece ot unadulterated un-adulterated political buncombe to ensnare en-snare tho unthinking by tho attract? lve but fallacious plea that you will lighten tho burdens of the poor nnd transfer them to tho rich? When tho Democratic hosts accepted tho royjl hospitality of Colorado's proud capital capi-tal and in Its last convention, assembled assemb-led in 1008, announced its tariff policy pol-icy llttlo did the enthusiastic representatives repre-sentatives of that and other thriving Commonwealths anticipate this violent vio-lent attempt to throttle their industry. indus-try. No such construction was over given to that platform In the campaign cam-paign discussion, but on the contrary wo wero solemnly assured by tbo Democratic advocates and orators that tho democratic, If Intrusted with power, would not lnjuro any legitimate legiti-mate Industry. Thoso strong assurances assur-ances sound strangely Incongruous and ridiculous In tho prcsenco of ro-cent ro-cent performances. Whero, then, run wo find the authority for tho present tariff program? Can wo find It in tho doctrine laid down In tho historic histor-ic but nbsoleto Confederate constitution, constitu-tion, which denounced the right ot government to lay dutlos which would encourage or foster any domestic industry? in-dustry? I read from section 7, article 1, tho constttutlon of tho Confederate Confeder-ate Btatee: J: "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, Impost, and excises for tho rovonuo necessary- to pay tho debts and provide for the common defenso and cary on tho Government Gov-ernment ot tho Confederate States; but no bounties shall bo granted from tho treasury; nor shall any duties ot taxes on importations from foreign forei-gn nations be laid to promote or footer foo-ter any branchy of Inudstry.'' Is tho Democratic Party wedded to this doctrine? Is its future tariff policy to bo iu harmony with tho principle prin-ciple therein declared? Evidently Uio presont Democratic majority Is deep-1) deep-1) imbued with tho free-trade idea. Whenever' you get beneath tho surface sur-face of tho "tarlff-for-revcnuo-only" reformer you at onco uncover a gen-ulno gen-ulno and hereditary frco trader. Tho gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Underwood) Under-wood) in 'bringing In these bills has been perfectly frank in announcing his ultimate purpose, but tho bills 1 so far presented by his commlttoo have only shown a veiled form of Jrce trade. In this bill, however, tbo mask is thrown nsldo and a bold audlclous attempt Is mado to Institute free traJo In this country. But why should an Industry of such promlso and Importance Import-ance as tho sugar industry bo tho first victim of this ruinous policy? Tho gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Underwood), in his speech yesterday, tells us that, with tho exception of brief Interruptions, It has been tho unbroken policy of our Government from tho beginning to raise a considerable consid-erable revenue' on sugar, ho states: "Tho growth of tho oeet sugar In-rtuRtry In-rtuRtry during the decade ended with 1909 Is shown, In Table 1, to havo increased 117 per cent in numbor ot establishments, 399 ner cent in iho quantity ot beets, used in the manufacture manu-facture of sugar, and the valuo ot the products, has Increased almost soven-fold." soven-fold." Docs thin furnish a justification for tho reversal of this century-old, Bottled tariff policy now at a time when tho rapid growth and development develop-ment of our sugar production Helms assured? Why this hostility to this Important and rapidly growing Industry? Indus-try? The gontlemnn from Georgia (Mr. Hard wick), who has glvou great ie-search ie-search to tho production of cano sugar su-gar in the Tropics and beet sugar whero produced, to my inquiry very frankly nnd candidly admitted that tho beet-sugar production of the world can not withstand the competition of the cane sugar of tho Tropics, declaring declar-ing that tho beet-sugar production was u hothotiHO industry wherever it Is found. Wo arc not building for an hour or for a day. It is our patriotic duty to lay a sound) and safe foundation up-Continued up-Continued on Page 2. I :',,! CONGRESSMAN JOS. HOWELL I t, -T MAKES BRILLIANT ADDRESS ftft t ,t j ) s Coiitlniicil from pugo I H j I ' ( " wll,cl1 t0 croct tho structuro of our M t ' ' s i national security, prosperity, and 1 ' . , ' greatness. Sugar Is ono of tho nccos; H J sarlrs of life. Wo expend vast minis M . N j "! of money In obtaining a supply for H "' our people. Under existing conditions M ', ',,,,, H' our country and Its posscsbIoiib sup- m f n I ply one-linlf our iiooiIh. Tho rcmalnd- H ! v , ; I er of our supply, excepting an lnsl- H . ''' M nlflcant ipianllty, Ib derived from Oil- B, t I Im, over which wo oxerclso a sort of H X ) benign guardianship. TIiub one-half Mf of our present supply our own pro- H"i ductlon and that of our possessions H Is duty free, while Cuban sugar, In H ' pursuance of treaty Atlpulatlons, pays H I i only 80 pel cent of il full duty. Tho M , present bill alto strikes n sovoro blow fl 1 ut the iirospcilly of our Island pos- M ', sessions, whoso well-being wo are uu- H t I - dcr moral and Just obligations to !, promote. Again, wo nro called upon 1 to Instantly sever our relations wllh ftft Cuba In violation or our solemn tica- It y BtlpulatloiiB, and thereby seriously i unsettle conditions on that unhappy ' " . country, for whose wolfnre wo should i nnd muBt ever entertain u feeling of j frlondly and mtlmato concern. Spenk- , I Ing or beet sugar In tho United States 4 1 1 , wo find that our country Is admlrhbly M I I adapted for tho production or beet M I I sugar. Wo need only utilize 1 ario H In ovcry 250 acrea or our country nil- H I aptcd for sugar beets, added to our m l cano production, tofully supply our M t entlro market. Tho beet crop Ib ii H now and distinct sourco of wealth to M tho farmer. Tho raising of beets do- M mands Intelligent methods of soil cul- M I tlvntlon and results In Improving (he H fertility of tho soil. It naturally in- M courages tho division of land Into iamal) holdings and Insures tho moat Intensive cultivation. In the neighborhood neigh-borhood of bcot-sugar factories you .will find the most handsome hnd well- ,1 ordered farm homes and a high statu m ' of soil tillage. Under tho ayRtem of M h irrigation in tho west beet culture M has proven highly successful. The fur- M ij sighted and benevolent policy which M ' 'I tho Government has undertaktn of M I: reclaiming tho waste places by n scries of Irrigation projects will open B ' . ? to Bettlement vast areas especially M ' t adapted to bect-sugnr production. Tho H i K sugar beet requires much Biinshluo ftH ' 1 to vicld the best results, and In tho M ' j West, as a friend expresses It, "Wo H i have 3'J5 days of sunshine, and the M ' f balance of the year Ib bright and fair. m , , j; My stato is vitally Interested In this B i .1 Industry. I saw it start. I havo win- BBb I , chod its growth, and 1 realize how ' ' much It means to the agricultural do- BBb velopment or our country, for, aftei I , ','.' nil Is said, the production of bcH J ( J sugar Is an agricultural industry. BBb , The sugar factory bears tho biuuo ro- BBh t - I latlon to tho growers of beets as does t tho flour mill to the grower of wheat. vl j This industry has made rapid Btrldcu M 1e '" tl0 fncu of udvcrsu conditions. iut J i l while wo aro bo splendidly fitted tor BV j i It sugar production, when we seek tliu BBV j ' ; markets or tho Hast wo nro confront- BBV 1 1 ed with a distance nnd freight eliai'K- BBV , !,' 08 that operate na n handicap to mar- i ' J ketlng our surplua production. Any 18' fair estimate to determine our fato BHV ',' j under free-trade conditions nmst take BBV 1 5' this factor Into tho calculation. Now, I nm not going to load my speech with columns of figures. Tho Hfo of atutlB-tlcB atutlB-tlcB is comparatively short, as o llvo in u world of constant change I Intend only to make nn appeal 10 the broad patriotism, plain common Bcnse.nnd Intelligence of those who t.elloo It to be tho legitimate province provin-ce of government to exorcise lt powers pow-ers so lis to promote our national welfare In tho brcadoRt sense, to niaka our people prosperous and hide, pendent, especially for food and tal-ment, tal-ment, and tho means of national defense. de-fense. Tim beet-Biigar Industry in this country has abundantly fulfllle'i the most Bangulnj expectations or Its advocates and ha Btrlklngly vindicated vindi-cated tho wisdom ot tho protective policy. It In now firmly established III 1G states, with "I factories In operation, op-eration, and representing a capita! of approximately 11)0,000,000. Unfortunately, Unfor-tunately, In tho past It has been .ho child of doubt and uncertainty. A cloud has hung over It hIiico we embarked em-barked upon the enterprise; It has been retarded by apprehensions over free sugar from our Island posses-bIoiib, posses-bIoiib, by the Cuban preferential, and tho uncertainty of our Government policy concerning It. It has survived tho croakers and knockers, who, at Hb Inception, declared wo could not make sugar in this country. It has survived tho unfriendly doubts of some men in high places In the house of its friends, but not withstanding theso drawbacks it has grown amazingly amaz-ingly In recent years. I have already cited tho tribute to its growth contained luv tho majority ma-jority report by Mr. Underwood. 1 will now refer to tho report by Mr. Fordney In behalf of tho minority of the Commlttco on Ways and cMan, which displays far more thorough and searching study of the question I read from page 12 or that rcpoJt: "Tho real development or tho boet-sugar boet-sugar Industry cln the United States dato from the passage of tho Dlngley Tariff Act, In 1897, at which time thero were only C beet-sugar factor-Je factor-Je In thU country, producing 37,G00 long tons of sugar per year. In tho fall or 1911 there were 71 sugar factories fac-tories in active operation, which will produco this soason approximately r.2fi,000 long tons or sugar Trom 429,000 acrea or beets. There la thus a gain or over 1,200 per cent since the pas-sago pas-sago or the Dengley law." Now In the faco of this splendid growth and extension why, In tno name of common Bense, should wo pursue a policy to utterly despoil Iff No other nation In the world has ever ev-er undertaken Btich u shortsighted, suicidal policy. It la true the great refining interests, recognizing tho rapid growth ot beet-sugar production and ttsatcady and rapid uncroachmont upon their business, aro united in urging urg-ing tree BUgar. This Is clearly pro-rn pro-rn to bo their postlou, as disclosed In tho testimony taken botoro tho sugar investigating committee. Kvcry New York refiner who testified before that committee, mid practically all ot them did testify camo nut In favor of free Biigar, or such drastic cut In tho present duty as would crlpplo tho domestic in dustry. Mr. Atkins, vice president and acting president of the American Sugar Refining Co., tells us of quor-icllng quor-icllng with Mr. Havcmuyer when :bo latter proposed to aqulre Interest in beet-sugar concerns, and In giving hlft reasons tor objecting said: Tho beet-Biigar business Is a com petltlvo business. It la produced In the western territories, where our markets lay. That Is, 1 say "our markets." I mean the market of iho rcriners, the various rcrinors. As that Industry grew, and I forsaw tlml 'it would grow rapidly, 1 bclived that It would reduce tho volume of buol-ness buol-ness not only of the American Sugar Refining Co., but of all the reflnoiB on the Atlantic coast, and although we had millions or dollars Invested In the business there, wo wero bulla Ing up a competitive business, ouo that would compete with ourselt, and one which wna bound to get away from ub; we could not control It m tho end. I say "i" I had no cm,-nectlon cm,-nectlon whatever with It; that was simply a business man's opinion. Mr Jamison, a partner of "friend of tho peoplo" Arbucle, that great I hilauthroplHt who baa dona so muili toward reducing tho price of cortuj, which Is now on tho froo list, and who Is apparently anxious to duplicate dupli-cate this performance In sugar for the benerit ot the great consuming public, tesltled that The Michigan sugar has boon down to New York state and all through there. It has Interfered with ub very larglely in sales In Ohio and l'ennsylvlanla. He goes on to Bay thai ho wants tho duty taken off of sugar "on account ac-count of the beet product," and adds: If there wbb no duty, 1 do not think the bcot would bo so prosperous, and we would probably sell moro sugar. It the duty was removed, I, mean to say. Kvcry refiner who wont to tho stand Clause A. Sprockets, president of the Federal Sugar Refining Co.; Charles It. Helke, formor secretary or the American Sugar Refining Co.; William Q. Gilmoro , partnor of Ar-buklo Ar-buklo Bros., augur roflners; James U. Post, president or the Brooklyn Co-uperago Co-uperago Co., a subsidiary ot tho American Sugar Refining Co. all had tho samo tale of 'woo to tell concerning con-cerning the hardships they 'tm"i nut-lcrlng nut-lcrlng en mvount of tho beo'-svjar competition and all expressing tho dcslro that this : ouug rival -bo I'd bo wiped out by the removal, o. the. duty on augar. Beet sugar Is tho' com petitor they rear most will loosen their grip on tho markets ot this country. This bill gives etrect to the selfish propaganda they havo been engaged la for freo sugar. It Is in their Interests, nnd a death blow to that most benetlsent agricultural auxiliary aux-iliary beet-sugar production. You are sacrltlclng an IndUBtry that can be carried on by limited capital, aim trom tho nature ot It not capable of tontiol by a trust, to bwpII the profits pro-fits of the Sugar TriiBt and perpetuate perpetu-ate the power ot this lawless juud grabplng monopoly. The assurnnco that tho same friendly nnd permanent policy toward beet sugar on the part of our Government that tho countries of Europo havo shown toward this Industry wolild witness a mighty advance ad-vance In tho production of heel-sugar In tula country. Now factories would spring up all over tho land. Theso 1 Continued on Pago 3 CONGRESSMAN JOS. HOWELL MAKES BRILLIANT ADDRESS - Continued from Page 2. factories would be constructed by American material nnd machinery and constructed by American workmen. I,ondB that now produce ?10 to ?20 lief ucro would contrlbuto to our fl wealth at the rato of from u0 to fl 9100 an acre, every dollar being tho fl product of our own peoplo and every tffp dollar expended In exchango for other products of American labor. fl . What a fallacy and a cheat It Is to fl " nttempt to mako tho producers In this fl country bellovo they aro benefited by I buying sugar from Java or some other tropical country, that buys little from us In whoso civilization and tradi-fl tradi-fl tlons wo have no partjbecauso of us fl thcapnosa, when thereby they limit fl nnd diminish tho purchasing power B of their best customers. After all, in fl the final analysis the people most en-fl en-fl titled to tho solicitude of tho Govern- H ment havo only tho products of their j" H labor to exchango for tho commodlt- I fl les thoy require produced by other j H labor. The sugar producer In this fl country simply exchnnges hlB vlabor I fl for the labor of his American crafts- I H man in another line. Tho question I fl of "cheap" or "dear" depends solely f fl upon the lalrncss of this exchange I H of labor. Tho Intoiest gnthoror and I H coupon clipper nncl the creditor class ? fl may bo benefited by cheapening tho I fl" products of toll, but such a condition i H bears with cruol soverlty and rush- I fl lng effect upon the debtor clnss. Now I fl what has been our uniform experience I fl In dealing with foreign countries? f fl Tho moment wo aro dependant lor i fl nny 3taplo article, controlled at oug- i H nr la by European syndicate, and all V fl domestic competition Is removed, up j fl goes tho price. Tho removal of tho fl duty may bring about a tomporary re- f B ductlon in price, but, oh, at what a B eost! When tho Industry is destroy- fl ed In this country our own trusts and I fl foreign syndicates will lay such trl- j fl buto upon us as tholr own sweet un- a I consclonablo will may determine, f H You surrender fifty-three millions of f fl certain rovonuo and subject tho Troa- j I sury to tho risk and doubt of a meth- I H od of recouping tbo loss of extremely doubtful validity and of wholly uu- j j Known revenue yielding power. You f &3fe boast of relieving tho peoplo of fifty- Jf threo millions of taxation annuaiiy. j ft As a practical question you do not. J IH You absolutely lgnoro tho fact and f rcfuso to say that a largo part of tho j H sugar consumed In this country is J H used in various lines of manufacture 9 whero tho duty is Imperceptible and j H does not enter Into the computation J fl In fixing tho prlco of the manufactur- D cd article. It has been carefuly cstl- fl mated that at least 40 per cent of f fl the sugar consumed Is usod in various H manufactures. I will print at the j H close of my remarks this estimate, f fl but will enumerate somo of them hero fl Condensed milk, biscuits, pie, and j I .cako bakers, confectioners, chewing J fl gum,' corn products, roflnlng compan- I H Ub, liquors and wines, preserves, so- j B da-water sirups, desiccated coconuts J H Quaker Oats, Jolley manufacturua. I H such as gellatln, Jello-O, Deserta Co., j fl candled fruits, rock candy and rock- j fl candy sirups, drugs, medicines, chom- fl Icals, cocoa manufacturers, Ice-cream j H manufacturers, Infants' food, packing fl houses, distilled wines, champagne, ( fli fruits, sirups, and mincemeat. How j fl much will tho conBumor bo benefit by fl a reduction In theso nrtlcles7Not one fl penny. You simply tako from the fl Treasury $10,000,000 to placo It In fl tho private coffers of thceo manufac- fl lurers. This bold and deapcrato free- fl trado bill will servo only one useful fl purposo, and that Is to emphasize bo fl fore tho country tho reckless, rulno -s H character of tho legislation that the , I Democratic Party might enact if clo- I B tbed with national power. Thousands j fl whoso prosperity Is menaced shudder H at the prospect and aro fervently I B grateful that tho citadels of power B arc still manned by Republicans who fl will bo truo to tholr pledges and prln- B clples and repel theso blighting on- B. alaughts. While 1 have heard nnd B deeply sympathized with the earnest fl appeals nnd protests against tho ruin and destrutt!6n of various Industries Ithioughout tho country Involved In the tariff program thus far brought out, I want to say that tho Mountain States aro slugled out upon which to inflict tho most sovoro and crushing Injury Our Industries seem to he especially singled out for sacrlflco under tho present regime. What lot of parcel can tho people havo with the Jicmocratlc Party? Tho mining industry, tho stock-growing Industry, the sugar Industry, prlrao factors lu our prosperity, all marked for slaughter slaugh-ter b tills free-trade policy. Ycu may temporarily Impede our giowth and Impair our prosperity, but "West" waid tho courso of omplro takes Its wft," ana the Democratic Pirty enn a. t teturd it. This suicidal policy will not continue to prevail lu this country. This is ono consoling thought thou-ght In nil tho anxiety and solicitude caubed b) theso cruel assaults on our prosperity, and that is that tho unties of thu party now clothed with a ilttlo brlif authority will serve to focud the he nueut.on of the country on tho nutul calamity that Mould follow com-, com-, leto Demooi title supremacy. The at-Ulu.uii at-Ulu.uii oi tlic )ieo;ilj will he drawn from tho political sldo shows and various political vagaries with which thoy havo been flirting to the serious consideration of statesmanlike p. lie-ies lie-ies neccssnry to Insute that prosperity prosper-ity und peaco upon which our friability friabil-ity us r. nation depends. Tho wreckers wreck-ers will bo driven from pla'o and power r.nd tho Republican Party wlih all 1(3 pristine vigor nnd statesmanship statesman-ship given supremo command. Sugar Used In Manufactures Uven thoso who denounce the Pay-ne-Aldrlch tariff law ns unjust, in-fulr. in-fulr. ni.iI oppressive and fnined in tho interests of th tniBts and mono-roller mono-roller muBt agree that tho boI.i pur-pone pur-pone of a downward rovlalon should bo either to benefit the Government Continued on Page G. I CONGRESSMAN JOS. HOWELL l ;ij MAKES BRILLIANT ADDRESS r. -i h . fr j ( tContlnued from pago tbroo) if. l( orthe consunior of both. Undoubted-fj Undoubted-fj ) 1? bu lowering of duties on certain ft, 'V .-artldcb would result In great r-.onor-V. J " ' nJ benefit, wlulo a reduction o.i S;, ' Mbcr articles would simply doprlvo . . I j j hc iovornment of the Income with. l! ! oul JxmcflUiiK tho consumer, r M '1 Krom what I have heard ami road Fj i j it maLis that as far nB tha genoral if! ' I j? uLlio Is concorned tbo effoct which S ,l, ! jx reduction of tho duty on co-aln aril ar-il ( ; ' .Heirs would liavo It thoroughly tin-G tin-G ? ! i lcniixiL This refers especially to sugar. uj ,r ' '1'coplo nro mado to bollevo that bo- !;'' j oujc tho consumption of sugar Is ' ' HO pcunds per capita per year tho ro- . , j n.val of tho duty, say i 1-3 cents I jjicr jiound, would mean a saving of I ii:' Jj. 41.07 far each Individual per year, or Hf i, jilior.l $5.35 per family per year. As '' I ' Sir ru 1 havo been ablo to uncertain H ' iio cieclul efforts nro being uiado to v! ' ' ' ' attention to tho nb'surlty of H t ; ,nnch a theory. H Only a comparatively small portion H ',j ' , rof iliv total quantity of sugar con- H ponied Is purchased by tho consumer H 'J , f'ura )ils grocer "In tho shapo of sit- H ' Bar. Tho halauco Is used as Ingrod- H ! jlcxrt or candy, condensed milk, H ' crarhm-K. biscuits, bakers, products. H (TrracrvcB. lea cream, nnd for turnd H ,1 tciIii of other purposes too numurom H j t l ciifinn. In order to reallrc (o H ;, Twhatnn cnnrnious extent sugar enttis H 3nUi tho tnanufactuio of mixtures and H , omiotuids it Is only nccesary to men H ' i ilion a few Items. H ,' '1 Condensed Milk 1 H'i "J understand that tho llordeu's C'o.i- H i dcoiKil Milk Co., nnd tliolr Mlchlgur. H 1 Ibraucl: use about $200,000 barrols of H sensor per year, and that thoy inunu- H itiUuro about 50 per cent of nil tW H t u condensed milk produced in this conn- H (l try. Thus 100,000 barrels of sugar, H ' equal to about 140,000,000 pounds, uro H jj -annually used for condousod milk H il .alone. H I 1 Tho rctnil prlco of a 1-pouud can H I j Is about 15 cents. This pound of con- H , j '' tlcnsed milk contains about 10 per H i cent of sugar. Tho u liolamilo price H .of granidited sugar Is 1 t-2 cents. H , Tliciofurc tho cost of all tho sugar H -contained In 1 pound u( coiidonacd H ! milk In only 1 -4T ceus. Now, let us , J sujiposo thnt n reduction in duty M fl would lower tho prlco of migar 1 cent M a OHir pound, making tho price of grun- B f nlated 3 1-2 cents uv iiuund. Thu M ': cost of all the sugar contained in 1 M ! IKiund of milk would then ho 1 2-r x cents. In other words, it would make a dlfferonco of two-fifths of a cent on a lG-cent can. Statistics wilt show that tho whole-Bale whole-Bale prlco of condensed milk Is not Influenced by tho fluctuations in tho prlco of sugar. It Is therefore evident that it would not have any effect on tbo retail price. What would bo the result if tho duty would bo romoved? Tho Government Govern-ment would lose, say, 1 1-3 cents per pound In duty on 110,000,000 pounds, or $1,80C,000; tho consumer won id gain nothing. It would merely bono-lit bono-lit a fow manufacturers of condensed milk. Iscults and Crackers It is of course Impossible to ascertain as-certain the exact quantity of sugar UBod by all tho biscuit manuracturcis In thin country, but, considering that tho National Biscuit Co., alone uses oer 120,000 barrels per jear, It Is more than probable that at least 1,00 J barrels of sugar per day arc requited by tliconllre biscuit and cracker industry in-dustry of this country. This would represent 3CO,000 pounds per day, or 127,750,000 pounds of sugar per year. It Is a well known fact that tbo prlco of, blMcults Is not Influenced by tho fluctuation in tho prlco of sugar. For example, the prlco of a "package" of "Uueedn Biscuits" will remain C cents tho comparatively small porcontago of sugar it contains cost 4 1-2 cents or 3 1-2 cents per pound. What would therefore, be tho resiflt It tho duty on sugnr should bo removed 7 Tho Government would lose, say, 1 1-3 cents per pound on 127.7CO.000 pounds, or over $1,700,000 per year; tho consumer would gain nothing by It. It would only benefit tho manufacturers. manu-facturers. Confectionary Most neopio aro acquainted with tho onormous adv.tnco in tho candy Industry, nnd fow people realize tho Imraonso volumo of this trado In the United States. The iattor Is roally tho greatest candy-making nnd can-dy-eatlng country In the woild. In fact tho census returns reveal tbo astonishing fact that tho United States Stat-es produces mora candy than England, Eng-land, Franco, and Germany combined. Tho consus tor 1905 gives tho nam-bor nam-bor of establishments as 1,348, capital capit-al Invested $43,125,408, and tho value of tho products $87,087,253. Dy act of Congress of March, 1912, under which tho census of 1905 was taKon, It was provided that tho euu- tncrntlon should bo conflnod to manufacturing manu-facturing establishments conducted under what Is known as tho factory system. Thercforo all of tho small establishments included in tbo Twelfth Census 1900 was ommlttcd. In order to mako tho statistics of tho census of 1900 and 1905 comparable, compar-able, it was necessary to rctabulato tho reports of 1900. In that year ther-a wcro 947 establishments estab-lishments In tho trado classified under un-der the new plan of tabulation as factories and 3,350 establishments doing n smaller business and not pro perly considered as factories. The report of 1905 discloses that In tho five years following tho previous census cen-sus the number of factory plants Increased In-creased about 42 per cent and tho capital Increased about 05 per cent. Tbo Increase in output was about 43 fcr cent. ' Tho number of smnll shops which flguro as factories In tho 1900 census which woro eliminated from tho census cen-sus of 1900 produced annually goods to tho value of over $20,000,000, this being an averngo of a llttlo more than $0,000 for each establishment. Ab tho number of smalt shops doubtless doubt-less inct cased In tho samo ratio us the factories, it wob figured that their output was equal to $29,525,033, which amount added to tho valuo of tho product accredited to manufacturing manufact-uring establishments gavo a total of products of $116,612,886. This was tivo yonrs ato. Tho census of 1910 if. under way, nnd of courso there uro as yet no available figures. It is likely that they will show a aluo In good of fully $150,000,000, not including includ-ing the emdll factories. It Is thercforo probablo that the total valuo of candy made In factories In 1910 will exceed $200,000,000. This represents tho cost of goods nt tho factory Jobbing prlco. Now comes tho cost of distributing tho manufacturers', manufac-turers', middlemen's, and retailers' profits. As the standard of vnrltlcs Is not Contlnuea on Pago 7. . CONGRESSMAN JOS. HOWELL MAKES BRILLIANT ADDRESS i (Continued from page I!) fixed by any accepted or acknowledged acknowled-ged test, tho profits are naturally cry great, and It Is safe to say that tho consumers of tho United tSates pay nt least 1350,00,000 per year for confectionary made In fnctorles. It Is of course, difficult to ascertain the exact ex-act quantity of candy this represents, as tho price varies greatly from 10 cents to $1 per pound. It we tnko 20 cents per pound as the aoragc retail price, lhe'uboe would represent 1,700,000,000 pounds of confectionery per year. It would require, an expert to give even an approximate cstlmnto of the quantity of sugar required to produce this candy. can-dy. Some vnrltles consist almost entirely en-tirely of sugar, whlld' others contain u smaller percentage. The use of glucose in candy making Is, according accord-ing to my Informants, much leas than generally supposed, Some of the belter bel-ter grades contain no glucoHo at all. According to ono authority, for every 30 pounds of glucose 100 pounds of sugar Is used. Let us suppose that tho average cnudy contains onl 35 rer cent sugar. This would mean that G12,i00,000 pounds of sugar ar. used per year by candy manufacturers. manufactur-ers. It goes without Baying that whe thcr sugar costs 4 1-2 cents or 3 1-2 cents per pound tho retail price of an crtlcls like candy, rolling as high ns $1 per pound, will remain tho same. To tho manufacturer a difference of : 1 cent per pound In the prlco of sugar su-gar would only make a difference of a small fraction of a cent per pound of candy. Example: Let up suppose that a certain grade of Huylcr'a, candy contains oven as high as CO per cent of sugar and costs 80 cents per pound. Ono rem difference in tho price of sugar woulu therefore "theoretically" change tho prlco of this candy from 30 cents to 79 1-2 cents per pound. It will be found that tho retail price of candy has never changed, owing to fluctuation In the price of sugar In 1905 the price of granulated sugar was G 1-2 cents; today It Is 4 1-2 cents but tho retail price of candy has not chnnged. An article like candy, a luxury in tho true sense of tho woid, .which !a oven sold "by the piece" nnd "by tho stick" can not be affected by a small change in the vnluo of such u low-priced low-priced Ingredient ns sugur, Tho above would sdiow that tho Government would loso the duty of, say, 1 1-3 cents per pound on G12,"00,-00U G12,"00,-00U pounds of sugar, or $S,1CG,700 per j ear, without benefiting tho consumer. consum-er. Tho manufacturers would bo tho (nly ones to benefit by It In connection with tho above 1 wish to sny that my estimates nnd figures only refer to "manufactured" candy, and do not Includo home-mad candy mado with sugar bought by tho consumer from his rotnll grocer. Chewing. Gum. As fur ns I havo been able to ascertain, as-certain, there aro approximately 6,-1500,000 6,-1500,000 pounds of chicle (the gum substance used for chewing gum) Imported Im-ported into this country annually. This substanco forms about 20 per cent of tho chewing gum which Is put on tho mnrket. Consequently It la estimated that about 32,500.000 pounds of chewing gum nro tAuuially icnsumcd in the United Stntes. Tho analysis of tho samples which I had nnnlyslzci! (Chiclets, Spearmint, nnd Adams'c) shows that this article contains con-tains about 73 pei' cent of cane bu-gar. bu-gar. This would menu that about 2."i,000.000 pounds of sugar aro annually annu-ally used In the manufacture of chewing chew-ing gum. Although chewing gum contains 7", per cent of sugar, which costs only i" 1-2 cents per pound, tho ictall prices of chewing gum are as follows: Chiclets, 5 cents per puckuge of 1 1-2 ounces, or 03 cents er pound. Spearmint, 0 cents per' package of one-half ounce, or I1.G0 per pound. Adams's, 0 cents per package or one-half ounct, or $1.00 per pound. If chewing gum manufacturers would get their sugar at 1 cent por pound less they would save three-fourths three-fourths of a cent per pound of chew Ing gum, the retail price of which Is $1.60. It goes without saying that even if sugar cost them nothing. It would not effect the retail price of chewing gum. I believe that the American Chiclet Co. (Chiclets, Adams's, and so fortu) controls about 60 per cent of the total business; tho William Wrlgloy, Jr., & Co., (Spearmint) about 10 per cent, nnd tho balance Is divided among numerous smaller Independents, Independ-ents, a list of which I have on file The duty on tho 25,000,000 paiinds oC sugar used In connection with this luxury chewing gum nmounts to about $350,000 per year, which amount tho Government would lose without benefiting anybody except the manufacturers. Accruing to the at'ovo ctiniatyj, I - i, Mil, ly of oii.O' re uired In on-Ij on-Ij four branches of manufacture, viz, coudciibtd milk, blscuts, confectionery, confection-ery, nnd chewing gum, is over '30,-00O.UO''' '30,-00O.UO''' lounds, representing n duty of over $12,000,000 per year. Tho principal object of this letter Is to point out In a general way tho absurdity of the claim that tho amount of tho money which tho Oovernment Oov-ernment would looso by reducing tho duty on sugar would go Into tho pock-cts pock-cts of tho consumers. I have confined myself to only n few products which, however, should suffice to draw attention to the manufacture man-ufacture of compounds and mlxtuics tho retail prices of which would not bo. affected by tho downward revision of tho tariff Sugar Is used In connection witn hundreds of other products. Tho manufactures of Ice clean, preserves, bakers' products (not Including blscuts), bls-cuts), pies, medicines, and so forth, must use enormous quantities ut sugar, liven tho tobacco manufacturers manufactur-ers uso sugar. Tho Amerlcnu Tobacco To-bacco Co. buys raw sugar by tho cargo. I bcliovo that a careful study of a thorough investigation by acknowledged acknowled-ged experts would reveal tho fact that but a comparatively small percentage per-centage of tho sugar used Is purchased purchas-ed In tho shape of sugar by the consumer con-sumer from his grocer. I wish to stnto that 1 do not clnlm my estimates to bo accurate, and in ordor to be in any renl valuo they should have to be revised and corrected cor-rected by statistical experts who nro thoroughly posted in tho respectho branches. How much of the enltro consumption consump-tion of sugar Is purchased by tho consumer con-sumer as sugar from his grocer can, of course, not be accurately determined, deter-mined, but It seems to me that 30 pounds per year per person would bo an exceedingly high estimate. This would mean 100 pounds of sug ar per family, or almost a pound of sugar, every day per family. If the reduction in duty would cheapen sugar sug-ar 1 cont a pound, each person would I save 30 cents a year, or 2V4 cents per' month n sum so insignificant that it would not effect even the poorest poor-est classes. This would leave the balance ot 00 pounds per capita which Is used In compounds, the prices of which would not be guided by the prlco of tho comparatively small pcrccntuge of sugar they contain. This could uo verified by comparing tho fluctuations In tho prlco of sugar with tho prices of tho respective compounds. A lowering of sugar duties would affect the agriculture Interests of jv-cr jv-cr 10 'states, besides I'oto Ulco, the Philippine Islands nnd so forth. The entlio cane-sugar nnd beet-sugar In- Idustrles would be crippled or destroyed. des-troyed. Tho Oovernment would lose nbout $60,000,000 per enr and tho consumer would not be perceptibly benefited, l'arctlcally the only bcu-flclarlcs bcu-flclarlcs would bo tho manufactures of sugar-containing compounds. It seems that those who favor the present duty should come together and take steps to acquaint the peoule as well ns the Tariff Hoard with tho tundnmcntnl facts relating to tho sugar sug-ar Industry In this country. Tills should bo done, not merely by presenting pre-senting opinions and uiguments, but by furnishing reliable date nnd sta-tistiees. sta-tistiees. Wide publication should bo K.vn to tb's biibject lu order to enable ihc people toirrlvo at u Just conclusion ns to tho existing conditions In tins industry nnd ut the same time to ivii dcr the Tariff Hoard all possible assistance. as-sistance. I believe that only In this .ay can the public be convinced that the now existing unjust criticism bus M. ivuHonuble bnsls. That nil undertaking of this kind bhonld bo placed Into the hands of "Ht'owledgod and absolutely reliable vperts goes without saying. The In-K-Htlgntloii, in order to bo of real vul-jo. vul-jo. should be as thorough and Impo ial us If made by the Government Itself, It-self, so that It could be used In meeting meet-ing whatever demnnds for tnfornni-, tnfornni-, tlon might be mndn by tho Tariff Isoard Tho result of such Invest! gatiou could 1)0 published III pamphlet pamph-let form and arrangements made to glvo It very .wide distribution. As tho tariff queBtlun Is ono or vital tin-i tin-i portnnco to all tho beet nnd enne i growers In this country it should not bo difficult to rnlso sufficient fundB , to conduct such investigation on lib-oi lib-oi hi scalo and to provide for n lur;e c'futribiltiou. e nest available talent should bu 1 engaged and their nams should be 1 .i guaranty of their impartiality and i icllablllty.. I The Tariff Hoard should be con-I con-I suited and nny Information It requir I es should bo furnished. There should bo no secrecy; no newspaper campaign, cam-paign, no "Influential, agencies," -rid so forth. Tho woik should be con-1 con-1 ducted on i strictly scientific basis I and tho solo object should be to col-i col-i lect fundamental fncts. and statistics and thus to assist the Tariff Hoard I and tho people to coino to intelligent I conclusions. Instead ot being .nfluetic-ed .nfluetic-ed or misled by unfounded statements state-ments nnd assertions made by the "free-sugar" advocates. I Stops Itching Instantly Cures piles, cr.emn. salt rheum, tetter, Itch, tilv-s, tilv-s, liiTpoi, scabies Doan's Ointment Vt any drug store. o Kor live news read the Republican o "IT Thomas' Klcctrlc Oil is the best remedy for thnt often fatal disease--croup Has been used with success in our fnmlly for eight year Mrs 1,. Whlteacre, Huffalo, N. Y bmr 0 m mmmm m |