that Congress determined to place raw sugar on the free list, lopping off about fifty millions of revenue, and giving our sugar producers a bounty as a greater stimulus to production than a duty had been.

In 1894 Congress went back to a duty on sugar, but the rates then fixed were found too low for either revenue or protection. The evil effect of ad valorem rates on sugar being demonstrated, the 40 per cent rate on raw sugar, then valued at an average of 3 cents, was supposed to be ample for revenue, and a rate tending to give our consumers cheaper sugar. It did neither. It came to pass that the world's price of raw sugars fell down, say, from one-half to threefourths cent below 3 cents, which produced a very considerable loss of the protection granted, affecting the revenue as well.

Then came the higher tariff of 1897, the sugar rates in which were designed to return enough revenue, insure to consumers sugar at a reasonable cost, and fair protection to our producers, and hoped for development of the sugar industry. Our producers, however, were promised, in addition, a bounty of one-fourth of a cent a pound to increase the development of sugar production-a more stimulating agency than the duty had proved to be; but the pressure for the speedy passage of the Dingley law was so great that in the face of the threat of the minority in the Senate to protractedly debate the bounty proposition, the latter was withdrawn, and so our domestic sugar producers did not get what the majority conceded sugar was fairly entitled to to increase the development of sugar production.

This is what was said:

Mr. ALLISON. I offer this morning two or three amendments to the bill, which I do not ask to have considered at this moment, but I offer them now in order that they may be sent to the printer immediately and returned at an early hour during the morning. I offer the amendment which I send to the desk.

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the amendment.

The SECRETARY. On page 200, after line 14, insert as a new section:

66

SEC.. That on and after July 1, 1898, and until July 1, 1903, and no longer, there shall be paid from any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, under the provisions of section 3689 of the Revised Statutes, to the producer of sugar made from beets grown within the United States during the calendar year 1898 and each succeeding calendar year until July 1, 1903, a bounty of onefourth of 1 cent per pound."

Mr. JONES, of Arkansas. On what many of us hoped would be the last day of the consideration of this bill the committee comes in with what is unquestionably the most radical departure from what has been the practice of the Government for a century in tariff taxation as an amendment.

There was considerable debate, Mr. Jones saying, "There must be time, it seems to me, to look into the question." Page 2255:

Several SENATORS (to Mr. Allison). Withdraw it.

Mr. ALLISON. In view of what has been stated by Senators on the other side of the Chamber, that the amendment will lead to a prolonged debate, I withdraw it. I agree with what has been so well stated by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Thurston], that it is not the purpose or wish of those who wish to pass the bill to introduce into it any new question which will prolong the debate. Therefore, if in order, on behalf of the committee, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

This was in the Fifty-fifth Congress, first session, volume 30, part 3, pages 2244 and 2255.

It is not for us to say what our national expenditures may be, nor what our revenues must consequently be. I have only pointed out some reasons why we shall need very considerable income to meet

our necessities, making the continuance of existing rates on sugar wise, necessary, and fair, unless by much lower rates on other products we invite larger foreign importations for revenue, too low to be sufficiently protective.

The following shows our consumption of sugar, the duties collected thereon, the per capita consumed, the average price of refined sugar in New York, and rates of duty on refined sugar under the tariff acts of 1883, 1892, 1894, and 1897. In the year 1884 shall I read this, gentlemen? If you are not interested in these figures I will pass them by.

Mr. CRUMPACKER. I suggest that you read them.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I think you had better read them as you go on.

Mr. OXNARD (reads):

Mr. BOUTELL. That was free sugar?

Mr. OXNARD. Sugar under the bounty. The per capita consumption was 63.8 pounds, under free-trade conditions, practically what it is to-day. [Continues reading:]

Eighteen hundred and ninety-five consumption, 1,949,000; duty collected, $15,350,000; per capita consumed, 63.4; price of refined in New York, 4.15.

Mr. CLARK. What year was that before that you just read?
Mr. OXNARD. 1892.

Mr. CLARK. That was the year when there was not any tariff on sugar, but a bounty?

Mr. OXNARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. There was a tariff on refined sugar, but none on raw sugar?

Mr. OXNARD. Yes.

Mr. CLARK. That was when we were paying the bounties?

Mr. OXNARD. Yes; under the McKinley bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The tariff on the raw sugar was the same as the differential?

Mr. OXNARD. Yes, sir. Now we come to the Wilson bill. In 1895 the consumption was 1,949,000 tons. The revenue collected was $15,350,000. There was a 40 per cent ad valorem duty that year. The duty collected was $15,350,000. The per capita consumption was 63.4, and the price of refined sugar in New York was 4.15 cents, practically lower than it had been under free conditions. [Reads:]

In 1896 the consumption was 1,960,000; duty collected, $29,800,000; per capita consumed, 62.5; price of refined in New York, 4.53.

Now we come to 1907, under the Dingley bill, last year. [Reads:] Nineteen hundred and seven, consumption, 2,990,000; duty collected, $60,130,000; per capita consumed, 76; price of refined in New York, 4.8.

We have been going on and buying more sugar, showing that the people were satisfied with the price. That is the end of my table.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you give the price per pound last year?

Mr. OXNARD. Four and eight-tenths.

Mr. BONYNGE. That was under free trade?

Mr. OXNARD. No; 4.8.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. What you call free trade is the amount of tariff tax that was collected on refined sugar coming into this country? Mr. OXNARD. I said $76,000 was collected.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. What was the tax per pound?

Mr. OXNARD. I do not remember at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. It was in the neighborhood of one-eighth.

Mr. OXNARD. Yes; something like that.

The CHAIRMAN. Í suggest, Mr. Oxnard, that you add to that table the tonnage of cane sugar and beet sugar produced in the United States during each of the years mentioned.

Mr. OXNARD. I will do that with pleasure. I will fix that and put it in the record.

Mr. MCCALL. Can you make also the returns for the intervening years, so that we can get a report from each year since 1884? Mr. OXNARD. I will do that for each year.

Mr. McCALL. These figures are very valuable.

The CHAIRMAN. If you could do it this afternoon it could be made ready for insertion in the hearing to-morrow.

Mr. OXNARD. That will be a job, but I will try to do the best I can. Mr. CRUMPACKER. My attention has been called to a statement published in Willett & Gray's Weekly Statistical Sugar Trade Journal, fixing the price for 1907 at 4.69 instead of 4.80.

Mr. OXNARD. I got my figures from the same source. Between 4.69 and 4.80 there is not much difference, but I will see if I made a mistake. It is 4.69.

Mr. CLARK. The sugar habit, if you may call it so, is increasing among all civilized people, is it not?

Mr. OXNARD. Yes; I think that is true.

Mr. CLARK. Have you ever investigated outside of the United States about the consumption of sugar?

Mr. OXNARD. Oh, yes, I have. The people that use the least amount of sugar are the Turks. You would think they use more, but they use only 6 pounds per capita.

Mr. CLARK. I thought that the Chinese were just learning to use

sugar.

Mr. OXNARD. I have not the record of the Chinese.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not increasing very rapidly in Germany, is it? Mr. OXNARD. It is increasing in Germany. The German Government is making great efforts to have the per capita consumption of sugar increased. They apply it to the army. They find it excellent food, and it has increased a few pounds per capita in Germany in recent years. I think it is about 42 pounds per capita in Germany. I am answering from memory, you should understand.

Mr. BONYNGE. What is it in Great Britain?

Mr. OXNARD. Great Britain is the great sugar-eating country of the world. The per capita consumption in Great Britain is 90 pounds. They put up jams and preserves, and a great deal of it goes in in that

Mr. CLARK. You say the people eat sugar because they are satisfied with the price. Is that right? Do they eat it because they are satisfied with the price, or because they have to eat it?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. To satisfy the sugar? [Laughter.]

Mr. CLARK. Your remark was in the nature of an argument.

Mr. OXNARD. I think both. I think I showed that they get their sugar about as cheap now under this tariff as they ever got it under free trade.

Mr. CLARK. I want to ask you now for information: Is this sugar consumption in the United States, this increase of the per capita consumption-does that grow out of the fact that they use more sugar, as sugar in its simple state, or do they eat more preserves and jams, and so forth?

Mr. OXNARD. If you want my opinion I will give it to you. The farmers and everybody have been extremely prosperous under the Dingley bill, and they have had money to buy sugar with.

Mr. CLARK. I understand that; but what about the English people now? You give that now as an argument here. How does it happen that they eat more?

Mr. OXNARD. They have always eaten the same amount, apparently. Mr. CLARK. They must be prosperous, too, then. What do you think of that proposition?

Mr. OXNARD. They are prosperous, probably.

Mr. CLARK. Is the sugar habit increasing because people like to eat more sugar, or because it is cheaper?

Mr. OXNARD. The consumption has not increased much in France. It has not increased at all.

Mr. CLARK. We lack a good deal from being up to the English, according to your own statement.

Mr. OXNARD. There is also this, I think, that I did not state: The English make jams and preserves and send them to their colonies. Perhaps that increases their per capita consumption. They are large jam producers, and send it to India and Australia and other countries. Mr. CLARK. Do you think any people in the world eat as much jam and knickknacks and gewgaws and gimcracks as we do? Mr. OXNARD. I think the English do.

Mr. CLARK. Then why did you not answer a while ago that this extra consumption of sugar grows out of the fact that sugar is cheaper in comparison with other things than it has been in days gone by? Is that it, or is it the taste of the American people for sweet things?

Mr. OXNARD. Let me answer that by looking at my table and showing you that they ate 63 pounds in 1892, under free sugar, when it was 4.34, and they ate 77 pounds last year, when it was 4.8, or 4.7.

Mr. McCALL. Mr. Oxnard, how is the price of sugar now compared with the price of other commodities at that time? Has sugar remained lower, compared with other food commodities?

Mr. OXNARD. I think very decidedly. Sugar is extremely low, and it is a great food product; and on that account the Germans, as I said, have applied it to their army and furnished their army with sugar, and habituated the army to use sugar as the cheapest product they

can consume.

Mr. McCALL. I was trying to find the reason for the increased consumption. If sugar to-day is cheaper than it was ten years ago, would 75941-H. Doc. 1505, 60-2-vol 3-70

not that be a reason for its increased consumption over the consumption of other foods?

Mr. OXNARD. It might be. I think it is relatively cheaper than other food of the same nutritive value.

Mr. CRUMPACKER. Has there not been a corresponding increase in the consumption of other foods as well as sugar? I know there has been, in relation to wheat and other foods, because of the good times. Mr. OXNARD. I dare say, but I am not competent to answer that. The CHAIRMAN. Great Britain exports very largely preserved fruit and sugar?

Mr. OXNARD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the sugar used in preparing those fruits is estimated as part of the consumption?

Mr. OXNARD. Yes; that is true.

The CHAIRMAN. And that accounts in large measure for their large consumption of sugar per capita?

Mr. OXNARD. Undoubtedly.

Mr. CLARK. Do you know of any place where we are exporting sweetmeats?

The CHAIRMAN. I can not answer that as an expert, but I can answer it simply as a member of the committee. I think we do not to any great extent.

Mr. FORDNEY. Has not the consumption of other food products increased in the past ten years much more than sugar?

Mr. OXNARD. Undoubtedly.

Mr. FORDNEY. Would you raise or lower the present duties on sugar?

Mr. OXNARD. I would raise them. I started out with that as the basis of my argument, and showed that it was the intention of the Republican majority at the time they passed this bill to give us still more protection, and I would like to see the stimulus added to.

Mr. FORDNEY. If we had still more duty on foreign raw sugar it would stimulate the production of beet sugars, would it not? Mr. OXNARD. Certainly.

Mr. FORDNEY. And in a short time supply sugar to all the people who consume it in this country at a lower price than is paid to-day with improved methods?

Mr. OXNARD. I do not think there is any doubt about that.

Mr. GAINES. Do you know what proportion of the world's production of sugar is consumed in this country?

Mr. OXNARD. I do not remember exactly. Mr. Willett, what is the proportion of the world's production of sugar consumed in this country?

Mr. W. P. WILLETT, of New York. The world's raw consumption is 14,000,000 tons, and this country consumes about 3,000,000 tons. Mr. OXNARD. That is about a fifth.

Mr. BOUTELL. Before you proceed, if it is a mere matter of tabulation as to those figures as to the per capita consumption of sugar, can they be carried back as far as they are available if they are given by decades?

Mr. OXNARD. Do you want the figures of what we consumed to compare with particular years-with the tariff of 1846?

Mr. BOUTELL. If it is a matter of tables, if they can be brought down from the earliest figures available they would be of great value.