Sugar

All during the last political campaign, Democrats and Progressives harried Republicans with the demand: "Why hasn't President Coolidge acted on the Tariff Commission's recommendations for a reduction in the tariff on sugar? Is he trying to hold off until after election?"

Mr. Coolidge received the Tariff Commission's sugar recommendations on July 31, 1924. He did hold off until after November 3, until after January 1, until after April 1. Last week, he announced his decision.

The Situation. The tariff on sugar is 1.764c a pound. The Commission has authority to investigate demands for changes in the tariff and recommend changes based on differences in cost of production here and abroad. The President has authority to act on such recommendations, reducing of increasing specific tariffs by not more than 50 per cent. The Tariff Commission (one member not sitting) recommended 1) by majority of three, a reduction of tariff to 1.2302c a pound, 2) by minority of two, a reduction to 1.7616c a pound.

The Decision. The President decided not to alter the sugar tariff.

Reasons Given:

1) Conditions have changed since the recommendations were made. In 1923, when the investigations began, the price of wholesale granulated sugar was 8.40c a pound; in 1924, when the recommendations were made, 6.37c a pound; in May of this year, 5.48c a pound. The present prices differ little from pre-War prices, although other foodstuffs have gone up 50 per cent. Therefore, the consumer has little objection to the tariff.

2) The U. S. farmer, needing a chance to diversify his crops, needs the tariff protection as much as other industries need their protection. Only by maintaining the sugar tariff can the U. S. be made selfsupporting, or approximately so, in sugar productions.

3) To reduce the duty on sugar 1/2c, as recommended by the majority, would cost the Government $40,000,000 a year in revenue.

4) The conclusions of the Commission are not final. By using different years, different regions, etc.( for calculation, different results, even calling for an increase of tariff could be obtained. Therefore it is better to wait for a longer period of stable conditions before changing the tariff.

5) To reduce the tariff would destroy--at least in part -- the domestic sugar producing industry. Then foreign producers, having a virtual monoply, might boost the price. For the protection of the consumer as well as the farmer, the sugar tariff should not be reduced.

Political Results. The President's decision is sure to arouse Democratic criticism, which should rise in crescendo as the Congressional elections next year approach--especially if the retail price of sugar should increase.