OCR Text |
Show THE SUGAR TARIFF HEARING Tho Imported sugar business nnd MMH tho tin can Industry, both of a mono- MMH pollstlc chnrnctor woro tho only In- B torcsts represented nt tho sugar MH schedulo hearing that carried a froo MMJ trade. No disinterested ndvocatos of MH froo trado no business men's organ- MMJ Izntlons, no roproscntlvos of tho 90, MMJ 000,000 consumers appeared to plead HMJ tho causo of tho freo sugar. Only tho MMJ direct beneficiaries of tariff reduction pMJ ou foreign grown sugar woro on hand MMJ to enlighten tho commlttco ns to that H sldo of n proposition which would cut M off $00,000,000 of government rovonuo MMM necessltnto a corresponding Increase M In Internal rovuuuo or lncomo tnx- tit lun, and wlpo out tho American MMM sugar boot ond cntio Industries, which MMM last year uroducod sugnr and by pro MMJ ducts valued nt $117,000,000. , "Tho boot sugnr production of 1912' H says Secretary Wilson, "Is about ono- H fifth of tho national consumption of MMJ sugar nnd Illustrates what can bo H done under tho protection of law nnd MMJ In conquonco of practical nnd woll- H directed efforts." Whllo tho tariff ro- H formers In Congress deny that froo H sugar would hurt tho American In- H d us try, tho presence of Importers H pleading for freo trado affords pos- MMJ tlvo proof to tho contrary. Would MH they not bo In Washington ou fool's MMJ errand If the sugnr bill did not prom- H Iso to do away with domestic pro- H duct that ono-flfth of tho compctlvo H sugnr that stands between tho lm- MMJ porters and compluto monolopy? Does H froo sugar square with declaration H that tariff reduction alms at striking MMJ down monopoly? Or on tho contrary MMJ froo sugnr destroys competition ns MMJ tho Importer!) seo why still protend MMJ that tho interests of lioucflt business B nro safo guarded in tho hands of men HBl who aro so roadllyi begullod or soLf- HHH docolvod into doing tho othor thlngT B Hoports of tho sugar tariff hearing HHJ stato that tho arguments of the beet MHfl sugar defenders from California Col- HBl orado, Montana, Wisconsin, Michigan BBl and othor stntes evidently mado no BBl such Impression on tho committee as HBl . plan to report another freo sugar HBl bill nt tho extra session. Will not bus MMMJ Inoss men draw tho Inforonco that HBl tho conunltto chooses to nccopt tho MHJ word of tho discredited foos of pro- BBl tectlon nnd homo Industry? This 1b a MHJ bad tlmo peculiarly so for such nn lm H prosslon to go forth and still further HMJ foster u feeling of doubt that persists MMJ In spito of frequent disclaimers. Pro- H Imbly It will transcribe that much of MMJ tho scary fooling has nothing sub- H statlal to rest on, but tho froo sugar M hearing carries u, messago that per- H in Its of only tho ono Interpretation MH monopoly wins over competition, HMJ Washington Post. MMJ |