ity excep e now to be incre 19 Sugars, all, of any degree of purity except molasses (duties in Austria are now to be increased 33 times). 19 Sugars, all, of any degree of purity except molasses (Hungary duties to be increased 20 times).. 244 243 Sugar and candy in loaves, sheets, cakes, and the like, whole or divided; also, powdered sugar with a polarization of over 98 per cent.. 245 18 Sugar: 1 Same as 1920. Tariff Statement of conversion equivalents (currency and weights) to be used in connection with duties on sugar-Continued. 18 Sugar-Continued. ITALY-Continued. Sugar manufacturing tax, for both first and second class products.. Consumption tax: Towns of more than 50,000 inhabitants. Towns of less than 8.001. UNITED KINGDOM. Sugar: Not exceeding 76° of polarization.. Exceeding 89°, and not exceeding 90°. Exceeding 90°, and not exceeding 91°. Exceeding 91°, and not exceeding 92° Exceeding 92°, and not exceeding 93°. Exceeding 93°, and not exceeding 94° Same as 1920. These rates were compiled by the Foreign Tariff Division of the Department of Commerce. So throughout the world, outside of America, a tariff on sugar is recognized as the most equitable source of revenue, equitable because the revenue is so widely distributed that it is of no practical moment to the individual user of sugar. This is true to a greater extent in America than anywhere else in the world. America is a land of homes, where practically every family table is supplied with wholesome food, sugar finds equitable distribution in the daily menu, equal to or exceeding any other food product. The total annual per capita consumption of sugar in America has within the last year reached practically 86 pounds, yet all available data and the opinion of the best students agree that the per capita consumption in the family budget of the household is about 62 pounds; a careful study of the amount of sugar used in the manufacture and nonessential trades equals about 28 per cent of the total consumption. (Page 103--Bernhardt-Sugar Equalization Board.) Therefore, if the full volume of the tariff proposed was reflected in the price of sugar on the table in the homes the total would not exceed $1 per capita per annum, while with the certainty that sugar production in America would decline to the vanishing point unless such a fair tariff as asked for be placed on sugar, just that certain would the margin of profit on foreign sugars increase as soon as the competitive influence of the widely distributed domestic production be removed. The result would be not a lessening in price to the home consumer, but the source of supply being wholly confined to a few distributers, the market could be easily and readily adjusted so that cost to the consumer would always be more than with the domestic competition plus the tariff. This is a reasonable and justifiable conclusion. The price would be measured not by the competition of a great number of producers but by the unrestricted desire of the concentrated distributers for profits. The Louisiana sugar producer is primarily an agriculturist; his final product, sugar, measured by the greatest elementof cost in its production, is an agricultural product. More than 50 per cent of the cost is in the culture and bringing to maturity of the cane. It takes 12 months' preparation and culture to bring the raw material, cane, to the point of conversion into sugar. All the risks of drought, floods, insects, disease, labor shortage; in fact, all the risks that any agriculturist must take and can not provide against in advance must be met by the Louisiana sugar producer. The Louisiana manufacturer, so called, of sugar is also the grower of cane, as shown by the following table (for 1919): Unlike the manufacturer who can from day to day reduce or entirely eliminate losses by ceasing to purchase raw product, or shut down his plant, or increase his profits from day to day by judicious purchases, always protected and guarded, able to change or adjust his plans in a single day, the Louisiana producer-manufacturer of cane and cane sugar must grind the cane as it comes, good or bad, and then must convert the field product, cane, into the finished product, sugar, without regard to loss or profit. In this he should be encouraged by protecting him in some small degree against the competition of cheap foreign labor and low foreign living conditions. The Louisiana producer-manufacturer is entitled to the same degree of consideration as the maker of the machinery he uses in his factory, the plows and implements, tractors, wagons, and railroad equipment used in factory and field, the clothing he wears; he should receive the same consideration at the hands of his Government as any other American citizen engaged in legitimate productive enterprise. He asks for no more; he should not expect less. It has been asked if other crops could not be raised on the rich soils of the Louisiana cane area. The answer is the question, Why discontinue growing a product needed in every home, a product that is an absolute necessity for the human and national welfare, a crop the production of which distributes 95 per cent of its income to labor, and other products, both natural and manufactured, in America-a product which needs to be doubled to supply the demands of America? For every acre now planted in cane in Louisiana just that much less competition is there with the producer of other American crops. Of the 52,298,000 bushels of rice grown in 1920 in America, 24,640,000 bushels was produced in Louisiana. Rice could be grown on much of the cane land, but why increase the production and competition in rice when to-day the rice grower is producing at a loss? Why add to a cotton crop that right now it seems can only be saved from bankruptcy by reducing and not increasing the acreage— and so with other crops? Sugar production should receive more encouragement in America than any other crop. Sugar production should be encouraged until America stood independent of every foreign land in its sugar supply. Another reason why a change should not be made to other crops is that sugar growing and making is the most highly developed, and requires greater skill in its production than any other crop produced in America. The Louisiana sugar producer has devoted his life to the study of this specialty; in most instances his ancestors for several generations preceding have been sugar specialists. He knows no other crop. All his capital is invested in specially devised equipment for the planting and culture of sugar cane. Millions of dollars are represented in his sugar houses. All his lands are plotted, drained, and laid out for the production of sugar. A change to other crops would require a complete change, a casting aside-in fact, a virtual abandonment and sacrifice of practically all his property. Any man who will give consideration to the thought will abandon such a suggestion. The Louisiana sugar producermanufacturer, or cane grower alone, is a specialist. He has done much for the world in developing the production of cane sugar. A major portion of the improved methods of cane and sugar production throughout the world had their origin in and were developed by Louisiana and the Louisiana sugar producermanufacturer. Men trained in the Louisiana fields and her sugar school have gone to all cane-sugar sections of the world, to there live in the development of the industry as superintendents and managers and directors of sugar-experiment stations. The reasonable price of sugar to the consumer is due to Louisiana development more than to any other one cause. Louisiana is ready to go forward to greater production, larger development, further advance in sugar production; but to do so she must have reasonable assurance of stability, and nothing can do more to accomplish this than a reasonable measure of tariff protection, such as she asks for and expects that the Congress of the United States in its wisdom will see fit to approve and fix. Average costs per ton of cane sugar produced. [Averages by factories and averages by tonnage shown in parallel columns.] |