ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF SUGAR. 1l 
the continent. The present bounty in Germany is about $c per Ib on all sugar pro- 
duced and an additional export bounty of over tc per 1b on raw and more than 4c per 
Ib on refined sugar. Direct bounties paid the European sugar producer in 1894 
amounted to more than $25, 000, 000. 
The average rate of duty imposed on raw sugar by the eight European nations 
named below is now 4.86c per lb, almost as much asthe United States’ war tariff of 5c 
per lb. The most that has been suggested for American sugar, including both duty 
and bounty, is only one-half the present European duty. 
In the earlier years of our government the duty on sugar varied from 24 to 5c per 
«b. Of late years, the policy of the United, States toward sugar has been as follows, 
and the present duties on sugar imposed by certain foreign countries are also given: 
Table D.—RATES OF DUTY ON BEST GRADES OF IMPORTED SUGAR (in cents per Ib). 
UNITED STATES. PRESENT DUTIES IMPOSED BY OTHER COUNTRIES. 
2861, 5 cents per pound, Germany, 3.9 to 4.75 cents per pound, 
4862, 4 cents per pound, Austria-Hungary, 3.9 to 4.11 cents per pound, 
(864, 5 cents per pound, Belgium, 3.94 to 4. 36 cents per pound, 
1870, 4 cents per pound, Holland, 4.8 cents per pound, 
1874, 5 cents per pound, Russia, 6.6 to 8.88 cents per pound, 
1883, 214 to 314 cents per pound, Italy, 5.25 to 8.35 cents per pound, 
1890, 4c duty, bounty on domestic sugar 2c perlb, Spain, 444 cents on foreign, 
1894, 40 per cent ad valorem, Spain, 2.94 cents on colonial, 
France, 6 to 7.45 cents per pound, 
The highest figures for the United States are for refined sugar, but raws constitute the bulk of 
imports. In the figures for foreign countries the smaller amount is for raw and the larger amount 
for refined sugar. 
AS TO STATE BOUNTIES. 
These have been tried in Utah and Nebraska, but a bounty offered by the state 
has proved to be an ephemeral thing. It has lasted only from one to three years and 
in no case has proven to be perfectly satisfactory to either the state treasury, the 
public, or the farmers or manufacturers directly interested in the sugar industry. 
It is urged against state bounties that they give an artificial stimulus to the business 
that is not conducive to substantial development or to the best results in field or 
factory. 
The general opinion favors appropriate protection against foreign competition for 
a sufficient term of years to give our domestic industry a fair chance. The investment 
required is so large that capitalists will not go into the industry unless there is rea- 
sonable assurance of its being successful fora long term of years, This hinges on 
protection against foreign competition, rather than upon any little aid for a year or 
two that might be given by a state bounty. 
Moreover, the state bounties encourage the industry in one state of course more 
than in another. Protection or direct aid in the form of bounties should be national 
in scope. Then each and every state will be on the same footing and the industry 
will naturally develop along substantial lines in those sections that offer the best nat- 
ural inducements to its permanent success. 
WILL PROTECTION ENHANCE THE PRICE OF SUGAR TO DOMESTIC CONSUMERS? 
No. Recent experience and the present status of the industry go to show that 
with proper protection there will be such an increase in the production of domestic 
sugar that, with the large imports which will continue, the market will be so well sup- 
