Columbia (Bm'bersitp 
 
 iiUhfffittpofUctugork 
 
 library 
 
 THE SELIGMAN LIBRARY OF ECONOMICS 
 
 PURCHASED BY THE UNIVERSITY 
 I929 
 

 I ?SO 
 
STATEMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 RELATING TO THE 
 
 Sugar Question 
 
 and Tariff; before the Committee of 
 Ways and Means. 
 
 By HENRY A. BROWN, 
 
 Ex-Special Treasury Agent U. S. 
 
 Washington, January 29, 1880. 
 
 The clerk handed to the chairman a letter written to Mr. Henry 
 A. Brown, informing him that he would be heard by the committee 
 this morning. 
 
 Mr. Dunnell. Have we not before us in print a statement of Mr. 
 Brown ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. The committee has before it an old pamphlet written 
 by me instead of a recent one published by me. I wdll hand to the 
 committee copies of the other one. Some person has very shrewdly 
 thought proper to place this one before the committee. 
 
 Mr. Dunnell. Both books are yours,are they? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. Are you in the sugar business ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I am not dealing in sugar. I am an investigator of 
 customs business management, and particularly of those questions 
 relating to sugar. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. Under the authority of the Treasury Department ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I was at one time special agent of that Department, 
 but at present I am not acting officially. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. Have you any personal connection with the Treasury 
 Department ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I have not. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. Have you any connection with the sugar interest 
 except as one of the consumers ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Not, except as one of the consumers, and as an investi¬ 
 gator of the question, with unusual facilities for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. Gibson moved that Mr. Brown be allowed half an hour. 
 
 Mr. Mills moved to amend by giving him one hour. 
 
 After the discussion, both the original motion and the amend¬ 
 ment were withdrawn, and Mr. Brown proceeded to address the 
 committee, reading the following paper : 
 
 However much this honorable committee, Congress, and the people 
 may have been saturated with solutions of the sugar question, care¬ 
 ful analysis of such solutions reveal the fact that individual trade 
 interests, too shrewdly put or awkardly presented, and official mis¬ 
 representations have strangely subverted facts; judging from the 
 facts in my knowledge, such presentations have unwisely ignored 
 
 V 
 
0 
 
 the interests of consumers, and misled Congress in its measurement 
 of this stupendous question. 
 
 The entire consumption of foreign and domestic raw sugar in this 
 country now exceeds 1,900,000,000 pounds per annum, or about J18 
 pounds per capita ; of which in the fiscal year ending with June, 18 1 9, 
 1,681,307,412 pounds were foreign sugars, to wit, 1,598,461,986 
 pounds dry dutiable sugar; 41,152,357 pounds melada or wet sugar, 
 and 41,693,069 pounds free sugar from Hawaii; this vast volume of 
 raw sugar comprises more than one-seventh of the officially reported 
 and estimated annual raw sugar product of the world, which in 
 1878 was 5,335,000 tons, and in 1879 approximated 5,500,000 tons, or 
 12,320,000,000 pounds; although we number less than one-thirtieth 
 of the population of the world, we consume more than one-seventh 
 of its sugar product. England alone exceeds us in this regard, 
 annually consuming about 62 pounds per capita, or more than 
 2,100,000,000 pounds; about one-sixth of the world’s raw T sugar 
 product. 
 
 Dutiable sugar and melada constituted 24.03 per cent, of all 
 dutiable merchandise entered into consumption in the fiscal years 
 1876,—’77—’78, and yielded 27.93 per cent, of the duty received in 
 those years, while dutiable dry and wet sugars and molasses con¬ 
 stituted 26.52 per cent, of all dutiable merchandise entered into 
 consumption in the years named, and yielded an average of no less 
 than 29.41 percent, of the total revenue from customs; the yield 
 being in 1870 30.61 per cent., had the full duty on the higher grades 
 of dry sugars being collected during 1876-’77-’78, the revenue, 
 under the present tariff from sugar, melada and molasses would 
 have exceeded 35 per cent of the entire revenue from customs in 
 those years. 
 
 In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1879, the total value of dutia¬ 
 ble merchandise entered into consumption was $296,742,215; total 
 value of sugar and melada $67,153,667, or 22.63 per cent, of all 
 dutiable merchandise. The total amount of duty received in the 
 same year was $133,159,025, of which $38,065,803, or 28.58 per 
 cent, was received from sugar and melada; if molasses be added, 
 the per cent, of duty received from sugar and molasses in 1879 is 
 30.24. 
 
 I am satisfied that had there been no foreign centrifugal machines 
 in motion to increase frauds, with reasonable official diligence, at 
 least 37 per cent, of the customs revenue would have been derived 
 from sugars and molasses; that is, we should have received $50,- 
 000,000 in the fiscal year 1879 from sugar and molasses, instead of 
 $40,275,402. 
 
 Uniform duty on sugar up to No. 13 would legalize and perpetuate 
 this system of enormous swindles, while the consequent exclusion 
 of low grades would further outrage consumers and tax-payers. 
 For instance: 
 
 We buy foreign raw sugars testing, say, 80 in the producing 
 country, at, say, 3 cents a pound; 100 pounds cost $3; there being 
 only 80 pounds of crystallizable sugar, the cost would be 3f cents 
 a pound; from such sugar, an outturn of all grades of refined sugar 
 
3 
 
 can be produced for consumers at correspondingly low rates, while 
 the cost of labor and materials employed in refining 8UC ^ 8 V|^ r }® 
 disbursed in this country. On the other hand we buy centrifugals 
 in Cuba or Demerara testing say, 97, at, say, 6 cents a pound, 100 
 pounds cost $6; the 97 pounds of crystallizable sugar therein would 
 cost 6.2 cents a pound; from this sugar, refiners can only obtain 
 the highest proportionate outturn of refined product in pure sugar, 
 &c. In order to supply the mass of consumers, when centrifugals 
 alone, or even with a small per cent, of lower grades, are used for 
 refining, the outturn must be stretched with glucose, starch, &c., 
 otherwise, consumers must buy the highest priced refined sugars 
 
 The difference between $3.75 for 100 pounds of raw sugar of low- 
 grade and $6.20 for 100 pounds centrifugals, represents what under 
 l uniform tariff to No. 13 would be the increased cost of sugar to 
 consumers and the industrial loss to this country, namely, $-.4o tor 
 each 100 pounds of raw sugar imported for consumption; besides, 
 our ow r n refiuers can produce centrifugals of equal grade from low- 
 grade sugars for far less money; neither would the government 
 train a single cent of revenue under a uniform duty to No. 13 over 
 that obtained under the present classification tariff ; on the con¬ 
 trary, we should simply be admitting centrifugals at the lowest rate 
 of duty, to the exclusion, or nearly so, of all lower grades; by 
 which process we reduce importations, because we do not require 
 so many pounds of centrifugals as we do of lower grades of raw 
 sugar to supply consumers with the grades of refined sugars they 
 demand: hence importations would be curtailed under a uniform 
 duty to No. 13. , T 0 
 
 Sugars for refining, when honestly entered, are not above JNo. 13; 
 therefore the utmost possible evasion of duty through false sampling 
 such sugars under the present tariff would be the difference between 
 2A- cents a pound and 2}|- cents a pound, or 62J cents per 100 pounds, 
 whereas should the weigher trifle with the scales so as to make a 
 ^ shortage of one pound in every hundred, the government must lose 
 $2.33, the average duty collected in 1879 per 100 pounds; the 
 weigher under a uniform tariff to No. 13 could defraud more than 
 the sampler could under the present tariff, while the profit to the 
 importer would also be greater in proportion. 
 
 The inducement to evade duty on low grades of imported sugars 
 is of necessity confined to weighing, it being next to impossible to 
 hide or lower their intrinsic color either to advantage or profit; 
 whereas the inducements to evade duty on high grades of raw sugar 
 are very great, when sugar of No. 13 or 16 Dutch standard, actual 
 foreign value, is entered as No. 7 Dutch standard in color, which 
 has repeatedly been done with centrifugal sugars, an illicit gain of 
 $6,250 accrues to revenue evasionists on a cargo of 1,000,000 
 pounds. No. 7 Dutch standard apparent in color has stood for No. 
 10, No. 13, and even No. 16 Dutch standard, actual in cost, in the 
 principal transactions of the past few years in the entry of dutiable 
 sugars of high foreign value, falsely toned in color to evade duty; 
 to burden low-grade raw sugars, which never evade duty, with a 
 
4 
 
 high-grade tax or uniform duty to No. 13 Dutch standard, in order 
 to legalize the present illicit practice of entering high grade centri¬ 
 fugals at low-grade rates of duty would outrage consumers. 
 
 The average foreign cost of raw sugar per pound and the average 
 duty received per pound was, in 1876: cost 4.08 cents, duty 2.41 
 cents; in 1877, cost 4.93 cents, duty 2.36 cents; in 1878, cost 5.08 
 cents, duty 2.34; in 1879, cost 4.12 cents, duty 2.33 cents ; showing 
 a constantly decreasing rate of duty with increasing imports of high 
 grades of centrifugal sugars. 
 
 Apparently all raw sugars imported were of an average grade of 
 No. 7£ Dutch standard, which is, of course, simply humbug; the 
 average cost of No. lb Dutch Standard raw sugar in producing 
 countries was about 2| cents a pound for the fiscal year ending Juue 
 30,1879; neither did the government retain 2.33 cents a pound 
 duty in 1879. Melada, or wet sugar, i9 used for refining purposes, 
 and, with free sugars from Hawaii, must be added to dutiable dry 
 sugars; therefore, the total amount of dry and wet sugars entered into 
 consumption in 1879 was 1,681,307,412 pounds, value $70,266,105; 
 duty received from sugars and melada, $38,065,803, less $3,365,297, 
 refunded on drawback on 116,862,583 pounds refined sugar exported 
 in 1879; net duty received, $34,700,506, or 2.06 cents per pound. 
 
 Instead of bettering this condition, a uniform duty to No. 13 
 would simply enable refiners to export more refined sugars of high 
 grade, made from high-grade centrifugals entered below No. 13 at 
 the lowest rate of duty, and obtain 3.18 cents per pound therefor in 
 drawback; while fifty millions of American consumers are to be 
 deprived of low-grade sugars or the outturn therefrom to suit such 
 speculations. 
 
 The classification of imported sugars for duty tell the true story of 
 gigantic frauds upon the revenue; for instance, in 1878 sugars 
 sampled and classed as not above No. 7 Dutch standard actually 
 cost 4.82 cents a pound in the producing country, or the average 
 foreign cost of sugar above No. 10 Dutch standard in intrinsic 
 color. 
 
 Sugars sampled and classed as above 7, not above 10, Dutch stand¬ 
 ard in color cost 5.37 cents a pound in producing countries, or the 
 average foreign cost of sugars above No. 13 Dutch standard in in¬ 
 trinsic color; sugars sampled and classed as above 10, not above 13, 
 Dutch standard, cost 5.68 cents a pound in producing countries, or 
 the average foreign cost of sugars above No. 13 Dutch standard in 
 le sugars sampled and classed as above 13, not 
 
 prodndng“ountrie a s C °‘° r ° 08t °"' y 5 ' 01 CeQts P er P ound * 
 
 raw Kn'o-nr^Jn ^7 , kn0wled S« or common sense pretend that 
 
 ao-e 4 fb> opnta ^ and 36 0 , V U1 " atul ’ a * color actually cost on the aver- 
 tfat 4 7to Si! P°"“ d “ Producing countries during 1878, or 
 cents ner uonnf wKT ^ CeD , ts - 0r that 10 ™ sugar! cost 5.68 
 
 ard cost on?v 5 n’enta 6 eugarsa ‘ )ove 13 > ™t above ItCDutch stand- 
 fications below Kn ir^ P 0, ? nd ln producing countries ? The classi- 
 
 In 1879 the an™ T P lall l'y tal8e and fraudulent. 
 
 in 1879 the apparent ad valorem rate of duty received was, on 
 
5 
 
 sugar not above No. 7, 53.2 per cent.; on sugar above 7, not above 
 10, 60.8 per cent.; above 10, not above 13, 60.65 per cent.; above 
 13, not above 16, 64.41 per cent.; but the actual ad valorem rate 
 received is another matter, inasmuch as the classifications for duty 
 are largely crooked; for instance, 890,801,182 pounds of sugar are 
 classed not above No. 7, and valued at $36,627,476; a little more 
 than 4 cents per pound in the country of production; whereas the 
 average cost of such sugars in 1879 in producing countries was about 
 2f cents per pound; about 20 per cent, of sugars not above No. 7 
 of natural color are imported, on the average, according to facts; 
 therefore only 319,692,396 pounds of sugars not above No. 7 entered 
 into consumption in 1879, amounting, at 2f cents per pound, to 
 $8,791,540; the duty thereon at 2& cents per pound would be 
 $6,993,271, or 79.54 per cent, ad valorem, as compared with 63.41, 
 the true ad valorem rate on the same grades in 1878, falsely repre¬ 
 sented for duty purposes, as 45.33 per cent. Even should it be 
 claimed that the average cost of No. 7 and below sugars has been 3 
 cents per pound in 1879 in producing countries, which is not the 
 fact, the ad valorem rate for No. 7 and below sugars in 1879 would 
 still be 72.91 per cent, instead of 53.2 per cent. The pretense that 
 the present tariff favors low grades is a miserable subterfuge, to de¬ 
 prive consumers of their rights and to legalize the present system of 
 frauds by a uniform sugar tariff to No. 13. 
 
 Hawaiian sugars enter duty free, and of course, there being no 
 profit or advantage in false entries and no duties to evade, the classi¬ 
 fication of free sugars tells the true story of grades to wit: 
 
 Hawaiian sugars entered into consumption in 1879 were as follows: 
 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Cost per lb. 
 
 Not above No. 7 (p. 10, H. C.), none... 
 Above 7, not above 10. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 8,174,146 
 
 16,615,686 
 
 15,670.564 
 
 1,232,673 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 501,850 
 
 1,099,164 
 
 1,118,117 
 
 92,061 
 
 Cents. 
 
 6.13 
 
 Above 10, not above 13. 
 
 6.61 
 
 Above 13, not above 16. 
 
 7.13 
 
 Above 16, not above 20. 
 
 7.46 
 
 Here we have not only an honest classification of sugars, but an 
 illustration of the beauties of a uniform tariff to No. 13 on dutiable 
 sugars, encouraging foreign industries and crushing our own, thus 
 compelling American consumers to pay the taxes imposed on foreign 
 sugar at every turn, while depriving them of the cheaper grades of 
 refined sugars, which can only be manufactured in this country in 
 sufficient quantities to meet consumers’ demands, by admitting all 
 grades of raw sugars at equitable rates of duty, conforming to their in¬ 
 trinsic color and value, under a classification tariff. It should be 
 remarked and remembered that Hawaii uo longer sends us raw sugars 
 No. 7 and below, because having no duty to hinder, she raises the 
 grade of her sugars for this market, retains the industry, and com¬ 
 pels the American consumers to pay her the full American market 
 value of the sugar when landed in California. Thus consumers, who 
 are tax-payers, lose the duty and pay for the foreign industry of 
 
6 
 
 semi-refining, yet cannot obtain the low grades of raw material re¬ 
 quired for refining purposes from these Hawanans, who fatten on 
 
 our credulity. , . . x ~ e , 
 
 Our trade with Hawaii under the reciprocity treaty from Septem¬ 
 ber 1, 1876, to June 30, 1878, and loss of duty on Hawaiian sugars, 
 estimated at 62.50 per cent, of their value, was as follows : 
 
 Imports, consumed-^4,799,508 
 
 Exports-f wqSI 
 
 Sugar imports - 4,oo-,yU0 
 
 Loss sugar duty_ 2,739,313 
 
 In 5879, fiscal year, the account with Hawaii stands as follows, 
 
 including loss of duty on sugar : I 
 
 Imports, consumed. _ $3,112,438 
 
 Exports _ 2,288,178 
 
 Sugar imports _ 2,811,192 
 
 Loss sugar duty _ 1,756,995 
 
 Worse than this, the introduction of sugar duty free from Hawaii 
 
 opens a channel for defrauding the revenue by landing sugars at 
 those islands and shipping them thence to the United States to enter 
 duty free as Hawaiian sugars. 
 
 A uniform duty on sugars to No. 13 Hutch Standard would vir¬ 
 tually accomplish similar results to these Hawaiian frolics in trans¬ 
 ferring American industries to foreign hands and shutting out low- 
 grade sugars, while the almost exclusive importation of high-grade 
 centrifugals, clayed, and semi-refined sugars would enormously cur¬ 
 tail the number of pounds of foreign raw-sugar material required 
 for consumption, and reduce the revenue accordingly; not only this, 
 but the application of this Hawaiian, centrifugal, clayed, semi-re¬ 
 fined, uniform duty principle to the entire volume of foreign sugars 
 now required for consumption would entail an industrial loss upon 
 the people of this country amounting to fully 2i cents per pound 
 on the consumption, or more than $40,000,000 annually, as already 
 illustrated. 
 
 Neither should the sugar productive industries of this country be 
 curtailed or crushed or be made subservient to foreign and domestic 
 speculations in American industries and the necessities and rights 
 of American consumers, as proposed under a uniform tariff on raw 
 sugars not above No. 13 Hutch Standard in color. It is a dangerous 
 mistake for Louisiana to endeavor to shut out low’ grades and en¬ 
 courage the importation of centrifugals and high grades of foreign 
 raw sugar, by admitting foreign semi-refined sugars at the lowest 
 rate of duty ; and the beet sugar industry now struggling into life 
 in this country would be strangled in its infancy under the existing 
 system of thuggism in trade, which system would be legalized under 
 color™ tanfl 0a a 1 SUgaFS n0t above No - 18 Dutcfi Standard in 
 
 f A cursor y examination and comparison of Louisiana sugars with 
 Wil1 Sb0vv inclusively that Louisiana raw 
 2 nothm g to fear from foreign low grades of raw sugar 
 gradl the existing duly on lo°w- 
 
 a c t° freight, charges, and commissions, more 
 
7 
 
 than doubles their original cost in producing countries, thus en¬ 
 abling Louisiana to obtain for her lowest grades of raw sugar prices 
 which remunerate her producers in a princely manner, compared 
 with the average returns from other agricultural pursuits in this 
 country. Louisiana, therefore, need not fear foreign low-grade 
 sugars. 
 
 Louisiana as a cane sugar producing State has always demanded 
 exorbitant protection for her sugars; the history of all well ordered 
 nations teaches that tariff protection should be extended only to 
 home products which can readily be produced in excess, and the 
 surplus thereof sold abroad with advantage and profit to the pro¬ 
 ducing country; if cane sugar cannot be produced in this country 
 in sufficient quantity to supply home consumption within a reason¬ 
 able time, it is folly and injustice to consumers to levy the present 
 high duties on sugar for the protection of Louisiana, Florida, and 
 Texas. 
 
 The capacity of Louisiana for producing cane sugar has been 
 fairly measured by past and present experience in that State; from 
 a yield of 30,000,000 of pounds in the crop year 1835-’36, a fluctuat¬ 
 ing progress in the annual production of cane sugar in Louisiana 
 brought the yield in the crop year 1853-’54 up to 495,200,000 
 pounds, after which it fell to 81,400,000 pounds in 1856-57, rose to 
 414,800,000 pounds in the crop year 1858-’59, fell to 225,100,000 
 pounds in 1859-’60, rose to 263,300,000 pounds in 1860-61, and 
 under fortuitous circumstances, including favorable weather, in the 
 crop year 1861-’62, Louisiana produced 528,300,000 pounds of cane 
 sugar; this exceptional yield has not been approximated since in 
 that State, notwithstanding improved machinery, agricultural ad¬ 
 vancement, and exorbitant protection. 
 
 > From 1862-’63 to 1867-’68, inclusive, six crop years, the total 
 yield from Louisiana sugar cane was 295,500,000 pounds of sugar; 
 less than five per cent, of the consumption of sugar in the country 
 in those years. If war was the sole cause of this falling off, how 
 has Cuba managed to maintain an annual average in sugar crops 
 under wars, devastations, and numerous calamities? The annual 
 yield of cane sugar from 1835 to 1879 is presented elsewhere 
 herein, where it will be seen that during the years 1868-69 to 
 1876-77, inclusive, nine crop years, Louisiana produced only 
 1,233,814,000 pounds of cane sugar; an average of 137,090,444 
 pounds per annum, or an aggregate product of less than the aver¬ 
 age annual consumption of imported sugars in this country, includ¬ 
 ing Hawaiian sugars, during the same years; the total consumption 
 of foreign sugar in this country being during 1869 to 1877, inclu¬ 
 sive, 12,217,854,976 pounds, or an average of 1,357,539,442 pounds 
 per annum. 
 
 In other words, during the nine crop years above named, which cor¬ 
 respond with our fiscal years, Louisiana has produced 1,233,814,000 
 
 pounds of sugar, the value of which at 8 cents per pound is $98 705 120- 
 
 while during fiscal years ending in 1877, 12,217,854,976 pounds of 
 foreign sugar have been consumed in this country, and consumers 
 have been taxed $288,260,765 of duty collected thereon; the Secre- 
 
8 
 
 tarv of the Treasury and Louisiana coolly urge the continuance of 
 this exorbitant war tax on sugar for revenue, and to protect Louis- 
 Sana planters, who produce only a tenth part of our consumption of 
 sugar, and that of a kind which now commands its own price and 
 market without protection, as in case of maple sugar. 
 
 Judging from results before and since the war, the annual reports 
 of Louisiana planters, and the local disadvantages, such as early 
 cold and frost, against which there is no remedy, consequent poor 
 seed and difficulties of propagating the cane from cuttings and 
 ratoons, the average annual yield is not likely to exceed ~dO.OOO,OOH 
 pounds, until plantations in general are much better worked and 
 properly manured, and more land has been planted with sugar- 
 cane. . 
 
 There are, however, good reasons for the belief that, with these 
 requirements fulfilled, the annual capacity of Louisiana for the pro¬ 
 duction of cane sugar would be equal to 500,000,000 pounds, and 
 that an average annual yield in Louisiana of fully 350,000,000 
 pounds of cane sugar could then be relied on ; and it is reasonable 
 to suppose that under proper cultivation in Louisiana and such 
 other States as are suited to the growth and maturing sugar cane, 
 a large portion of the sugar required for our own consumption 
 could be produced in this country without the aid of special tariff 
 protection. 
 
 In many parishes in Louisiana, sugar plantations readily produce 
 more than a ton of sugar to the acre, besides molasses; in the crop 
 year 1877-’78 there are reported products per acre from Louisiana 
 sugar plantations as follows : 3,000 pounds, 2,860 pounds, 2,855 
 pounds, 2,700 pounds, 2,634 pounds, 2,650 pounds, 2,500 pounds, 
 2,460 pounds, 2,400 pounds, 2,320 pounds, 2,300 pounds, 2,250 
 pounds, 2,240 pounds, and 33 plantations reported a yield of 2,200 
 pounds and upward of sugar to the acre, besides molasses. M. 
 Schlatre, an authority among Louisiana planters, has furnished de¬ 
 tailed statements of the cost of producing cane sugar in Louisiana 
 on the basis ot 2,200 pounds of sugar per acre, which summarizes 
 as follows for the crop year 1877—’78: 
 
 Total cost of cane, planting, and cultivating 50 acres... $2,413 50 
 Expenses to convert the cane into 100 hogsheads sugar.. 3,000 00 
 Cost per acre when producing 2 hogsheads sugar..108 27 
 Yield of 50 acres of cane in sugar and molasses; 100 hoo-s- 
 
 heads sugar (1,100 pounds to the hogshead,) at 8 cents 
 
 1 P e , rpo “ nd -—... ; . 8,800 00 
 
 150 hogsheads molasses, at 818 per hogshead 2,700 00 
 
 Cistern bottoms_ gOO QO 
 
 Total value of product_ _ goo 00 
 
 Total cost of production_ 5*413 50 
 
 Net profit from 50 acres__ a q qr 50 
 
 p1r^e!!r:. $w .!f:.. y l e . ld «Mrn*“p£s ’ 1 
 
 The above estimated profit per acre is princely, when compared 
 
9 
 
 with the average annual agricultural yield in net profit of less than 
 $30 per cultivated acre; but it would be largely increased under a 
 thorough system of cultivation, manuring, and manufacture, whereby 
 more and better cane would be produced, and more juice be ab¬ 
 stracted therefrom than is now the case. At least 3,000 pounds of 
 sugar per acre should be obtained in good years; indeed it is con¬ 
 ceded by Louisiana planters that the cultivation of sugar-cane in 
 that State is profitable throughout under economical and experienced 
 management, notwithstanding intervening poor crops caused by 
 climatic drawbacks ; it is also a fact that Louisiana raw sugars com¬ 
 mand their own market of consumption, at prices which compete 
 only with refined sugars, and do not really come into competition 
 with foreign raw r sugars. 
 
 Louisiana producers readily obtain an average price above 7 cents 
 per pound for their sugars, which, although defecated or made bright 
 in color by sulphur or muriate of tin, previously contain less crystal¬ 
 lizable sugar than foreign refining muscovadoes and molasses sugars, 
 while the foreign producers of these sugars obtain an average of 
 about 2| cents per pound only. Analyses of numerous cargoes of 
 Louisiana sugars resulted as follows : lowest cargo test, crystals 
 81.10; invert sugar, 8.41; water, 7.39; ash, 1.32; other impurities, 
 1.78; highest cargo test, crystals, 90.30; invert sugar, 1.27; water, 
 4.83; ash, 0.82; other impurities, 2.78; average cargo tests, crys¬ 
 tals, 84.75; invert sugar, 5.70; water, 6.12; ash, 1.15; other im¬ 
 purities, 2.28; average crystallizable strength, avoiding extremes, 
 Louisiana sugars, 84.75; foreign muscovadoes, average 88.89, as 
 shown hereinafter. In short, Louisiana needs no protection against 
 foreign raw sugars until she produces raw sugars for refining pur¬ 
 poses and not for immediate consumption, which she has no inten¬ 
 tion of doing while her producers can sell raw sugars brightened in 
 color for immediate consumption, at prices ranging from 7 to 11 
 cents per pound, as in 1877-’78-’79. 
 
 Beet sugar can unquestionably be produced in the United States 
 in vast quantities; there is abundant evidence that the sugar-beet 
 can be grown at a good profit in many sections of this country, and 
 be made to yield, under a proper cultivation, from 9 to 12 per cent, 
 of its weight in crystallizable sugar and sirup; the pulp residuum 
 remains highly nutritious for cattle, and the green beet tops are 
 excellent for feeding to stock. 
 
 From 20 to 25 tons of sugar-beets can be raised to the acre on 
 ordinary farming-land with moderate manuring, at about the cost of 
 raising potatoes; where proper farming-tools are used for planting 
 beet-seed and hoeing the plants, there is no crop of roots more 
 easily cultivated than beets; the tap-root of the beet finds moisture 
 enough and flourishes in sandy loam and moderately dry farming 
 land ; when suitable land produces less than 20 tons of sugar-beets 
 to the acre, the fault or failure will be found, as in the case of 
 sugar-cane, in the farming or want of manure; sugar-beet culture 
 has great advantage over sugar-cane _ culture in this country, as the 
 latter is subject to casualties of climate almost unknown to the 
 former. 
 
 9 
 
10 
 
 Farmers in Maine are now (1879) paid §6 per ton of 2,240 pounds 
 for unwashed sugar-beets delivered at the factory in Portland, or $5 
 per ton delivered at railroad stations centering at Portland ; the 
 average yield in France is about 23 tons of beets to the acre, and 
 from 11 to 14 per cent, of sugar and sirup therefrom, both of which 
 outturns can be equaled or excelled in this country; when requisite 
 experience in cultivating the sugar-beet has been acquired, we can 
 produce two tons of beet sugar per acre, and, all things considered, 
 farmers will be better paid from sugar-beet crops at 85 per ton 
 unwashed, delivered at central stations, than from any other crops 
 they generally handle. 
 
 Continental Europe has set us an example in beet-sugar produc¬ 
 tion, and presents a profitable and progressive record of energy 
 and enterprise in this regard, producing, in 1878, 1,465,000 tons of 
 beet sugar, with a prospective crop, in 1879, of at least 1,500,000 
 tons; as beet sugar must be refined before it is suitable for con¬ 
 sumption, the industry of refining in this country must be greatly 
 benefited by the increased production of beet sugar; the beet sugar 
 industry has taken shape in Maine, Massachusetts, Delaware, and 
 California, and is in embryotic form elsewhere in this country; it 
 already bids fair to become a source of national wealth; a moderate 
 duty on foreign sugar will stimulate the production of cane and 
 beet sugar in this country, but the broad basis of dependence with both 
 of these industries is their capacity of production in competition icith 
 foreign producers on equal terms. 
 
 On the contrary, when we come to the refinod outturn from im¬ 
 ported sugars, Louisiana must of necessity compete therewith, and 
 it is very evident that the higher the grades of imp<>rted raw sugars, 
 the more difficult it becomes for domestic sugars to compete with 
 the outturn therefrom in quality and prices. Her remedv lies in 
 refining her own sugars. Louisiana, therefore, sounds the tocsin of 
 her own sugar productive undoing when she advocates a uniform 
 duty on all sugars not above No. 13 in color. A uniform dutv to 
 ho 16 would be even worse for her; it is further evident that pro¬ 
 tected by a uniform duty to No. 13, Cuba and other countries would 
 soon flood us with muscovadoes of a grade suitable for immediate 
 consump ion, at prices with which Louisiana muscovadoes could not 
 compete profitably in this market. 
 
 tnHff ,e w^T ltieS U ! ^ he Way ° f ado P tin g an actual ad valorem sugar 
 a ' nty , ot collectin S the full duty from sugar and 
 
 ^uriSs and ffl 18e ’- are al “ 0st insu ™muntable, owing to fluctuations 
 in prices and false invoicing, & c . 
 
 trinsic colors 1 * S P er ^ ect ^y competent to determine the in- 
 
 rated to the con vat el™ J u £ ars natural color, when such sugars are 
 low o-rades of nw « ^ stan dard samples in grain ; as regards 
 
 prohibit bv adorl^f 1 '’ *5? ‘Ration of which it is souglt to 
 
 impracticable unde^the’Dutch'sti 11 ^ ‘d 13, evasion ot ’ dat - T J 9 
 cial fraud in sampling or vveiffhi. t r a ' one > exce P t through offi- 
 still their color remains thf g * £- ri - S , h such su £ ars thoroughly, 
 tion are required tn A* - 8ame ; Neith ^ analysis nor polariza- 
 reqmred to determine the intrinsic color and quality of 
 
11 
 
 sugars between melada and sugars not above No. 10 Dutch stand¬ 
 ard in natural color. Muscovadoes and molasses sugars, made by 
 natural draining alone, although from No. 10 to 14 in color, can 
 always be accurately determined, and classed for duty by the use of 
 the Dutch standard only. 
 
 Discolorations to evade duty begin with the higher grades, namely, 
 with Centrifugals, Javas, and vacuum pan sugars and such foreign 
 sugars as would naturally be about No. 11 to No. 16 Dutch standard 
 in color when honestly made, and which almost invariably test above 
 92 and to 98 in crystallizable strength in 100 parts of raw sugar ma¬ 
 terial. 
 
 Natural discoloration of raw sugar to evade duty, especially as re¬ 
 gards centrifugals, consists simply in the retention of molasses and 
 impurities, or in adding an excess of lime, sulphuric acid, burnt 
 sirup or caramel to the juice in defecators, in the pan, or in the 
 mass in the centrifugal machine. Vacuum-pan sugars and clayed 
 sugars may be similarly discolored by injection and leaching. Low¬ 
 ering of color may be carried to any desirable extent in raw sugar, 
 and still maintain therein 93 to 98 per cent, of crystallizable sugar, 
 varying in color and strength in crystals at the option of manipu¬ 
 lators. 
 
 That the discoloration abuse is not confined to this country and 
 practiced for the evasion of duty alone, may be seen in the follow¬ 
 ing circular emanating from Holland—the birthplace of the Dutch 
 standard—wherein analysis is adopted as an adjunct to the color 
 standard, which cannot be entirely superseded so long as color re¬ 
 mains necessarily a principal factor in fixing the value of sugar 
 among merchants for trade purposes. The circular is as follows: 
 
 Rosendall, September 26, 1879. 
 
 To the President and Members of the Central Committee of the Sugar Manufacturers 
 of France: 
 
 Gentlemen: We have the honor to inform you that two days ago the Minister of 
 Finance has presented a law to prevent artificial coloration of sugars and the use of 
 artificial mixtures intended to deceive as to the true value of sugars. 
 
 Their value will be determined by chemical analysis. 
 
 Please, gentlemen, accept the assurance of our distinguished consideration. 
 
 B. JAEGAR, 
 President. 
 
 B. Reiger, Secretary. 
 
 It will be observed that only artificial mixtures are referred to in 
 the Hollandic circular. Nevertheless, natural discolorations will 
 quite as readily be detected and disposed of by analysis, such being 
 practiced in manufacturing Java sugars, as well as centrifugals and 
 other raw sugars of high crystallizable strength and value. Discol¬ 
 oration of foreign sugars in the country of production is, and has 
 long been, practiced to lower the grade and quality of sugar in ap¬ 
 pearance, for the purpose of evadmg duty, and to raise the grade 
 and quality of both raw and refined sugars, to deceive customers 
 and obtain higher prices in the market than the same sugars of na¬ 
 tural colors are worth intrinsically. Java clayed sugars are high 
 priced, and mostly above 92 in crystallizable strength. Like centri¬ 
 fugals and vacuum-pan sugars, they have long been manipulated in 
 
n 
 
 color to evade duty—manipulations which Treasury officials, who 
 have arbitrarily superseded collectors and appraisers, have thus far 
 failed to cope with understandingly, much less successfully. 
 
 The era of free trade in sugar has not been reached, and if foreign 
 sugars were placed on the free list, producing countries would levy 
 an offset export duty thereon, thus maintaining the cost as before, 
 or increasing it. On the other hand, uniform duty w r ould discrim¬ 
 inate against the bulk of imported sugars which we must mainly 
 depend upon for the production of refined sugar suitable to the im¬ 
 perative demands of eight-tenths of the people, and favor centrifu¬ 
 gals and high-grade sugars immensely, without benefit to the great 
 mass of consumers or the revenue, and would check consumption 
 and home production, as shown elsewhere. Classification accord¬ 
 ing to quality, for the purpose of levying duty on sugar, remains, 
 therefore, an inevitable sequence of wise legislation. 
 
 In order to counteract discolorations practiced to evade duty under 
 a color standard alone, it becomes necessary to combine analysis 
 with the color standard in order to determine accurately the quality 
 and consequent foreign value of imported sugars, and to establish 
 an equitable test line of crystallizable strength as a basis for levying 
 duty Naturally and equitably the line would fall between 91 and 
 and 93, and should be established at 92 for cargo samples. Dry¬ 
 ing samples and raising the test line above 92, discriminates in 
 avor of centrifugals, clayed and vacuum-pan sugars, as will be here¬ 
 inafter seen. 
 
 During his investigations the writer has secured numerous cargo 
 samples of various classes of imported sugars, including many con¬ 
 taining artificial and natural discolorants, and caused them to be 
 ana yzed He has also obtained the results of official and trade 
 analyses of several hundred cargoes of imported sugars that have 
 entered into consumption during 1875-’6-’7- ; 8-’9. The results cor- 
 vWd^A a ? d eSt % bl ^ h Q is former premises published in his “Re- 
 n +vf Se - 8 ° f Question,” and repeated herein. For 
 
 3 1le b^ e lm P°rted sugars named below, when of natural color 
 and condition, are found by analysis to contain crvstallizable suo-ar 
 approximately as follows. Per cent, of crystallizable suo- ar in 100 
 parts of material. Extreme exceptions have been omitted: 
 
 Melado_ 
 
 Mexican sugar below 7 D. S 
 
 China sugar 7 to 10 D. 
 
 Dullooah sugar, 7 to 10 D. S 
 Gurpatta sugar, n. a., 7 D. si 
 
 Iloilo sugar, 7 to 10 D. S_ 
 
 Bahia sugar, n. a., 7 D. S_ 
 
 Guadeloupe sugar, 7 to 10 
 Peruvian concrete, n. a., 7 D. S~ 
 Cuba clayed sugar, 7 to 12 d! S 
 Molasses sugar, 7 to 12 D. S___I 
 Martinique sugar, 7 to 10 D. S 
 Beet sugar above 7 to 14 D. S_” 
 Java clayed sugar above 7 to lifT's 
 Gemerara sugar, n. a., 7 D S 
 Centrifugal sugar, 7 D. S. (low) 
 Chuyang sugar, n.a,7D.S 
 Taal sugar below 7 D. S__ 
 
 .63 to 76 
 .70 to 76 
 . 79 to 90 
 .75 to 84 
 .77 to 86 
 .81 to 89 
 .71 to 73 
 .80 to 87 
 .76 to 83 
 .87 to 96 
 86 to 91 
 .82 to 89 
 .93 to 97 
 .93 to 97 
 .83 to 88 
 .91 to 92 
 83 to 89 
 
 
13 
 
 Penang sugar, n. a., 7 D. S_ 69 to 75 
 
 Formosa sugar, n. a., 7 D. S-73 to 80 
 
 Cebu sugar, n. a., 7 D. S_ 74 to 85 
 
 Manila sugar below 7 D. S_76 to 82 
 
 Macio sugar, n. a., 7 D. S_86 to 89 
 
 Egyptian sugar, 7 to 10 D. S-80 to 90 
 
 Barbadoes sugar, 7 to 10 D. S_86 to 89 
 
 Pernambuco sugar, 7 to 10 D. S_84 to 89 
 
 Muscovado sugar, 10 to 14 D. S_85 to 91 
 
 Porto Rico sugar, 7 to 12 D. S_84 to 91 
 
 Beet sugar, n. a. 7 D. S-90 to 92 
 
 Java* clayed sugar, n. a., 7 D. S_90 to 92 
 
 Hawaiian sugar, 7 to 10 D. S--_.89 to 91 
 
 Demerara sugar, 9 to 12 D. S_90 to 96 
 
 Centrifugal sugar above 7 to 14 D. S-93 to 97 
 
 Surinam sugar, n. a., 7 D. S_81 to 86 
 
 It may at once be seen in the above schedule, which embraces 
 more than 300 cargo tests, and includes crop variations, that 92 
 degrees of crystallizable strength in 100 parts of properly-sampled 
 raw sugar provides a natural and equitable dividing line for coun¬ 
 teracting both artificial and natural colorants, and equitably de¬ 
 termining the natural color, quality, and value of discolored raw 
 sugars, in order to levy correct duty thereon. Raw sugars natur¬ 
 ally testing above 92 in equitable cargo samples run 93 to 96 as a 
 rule, with comparatively few exceptions, and should be covered in 
 a single classification when not above 13 Dutch standard in natural 
 color, which, in the case of large-grain centrifugals, can only be 
 determined by crushing the grain. 
 
 Samples are before me of a cargo of large-grained centrifugal 
 sugar, which appears to be not above 10 Dutch standard in color, 
 and the cargo was so entered and liquidated—the samples test of 
 sugar, 97; imp., 2.5; water, 0.5. On being crushed, the sugar is 
 No. 20 Dutch standard in color, and excellent for eating, the crys¬ 
 tals having been outwardly darkened with sugar impurities, doubt¬ 
 less to evade duty. Of course, such and simitar sugars should pay 
 duty on intrinsic color, as being above 92 and above 16 Dutch 
 standard—the true intent and purpose of the Dutch standard being 
 to measure the intrinsic color of sugars, while by analysis we measure 
 the intrinsic quality of sugar. 
 
 On the other hand, refining muscovado sugars, although mostly 
 10 Dutch standard or above in natural color, acquired simply by 
 draining, contain less than 92 per cent, of crystallizable sugar. 
 Analyses of 47 different cargoes of muscovadoes are before me 
 which tested as follows in crystallizable sugar : Lowest test, 84.80 ; 
 highest test, 92; general range of cargo tests, 85 to 91; average of 
 cargo tests, 88.89. Nevertheless, the claim that light-colored mus¬ 
 covadoes are virtually prohibited by the present tariff proves mis¬ 
 taken, inasmuch as color being the prime factor of value in raw 
 grocery sugars (muscovadoes made light and fit for eating by defe¬ 
 cation in addition to natural draining,) it is evident that muscovado 
 sugars imported suitable for consumption will, if consumers want 
 them, bring value accordingly, as in the case of Louisiana sugars, 
 and should pay a higher rate of duty than undefecated muscovadoes 
 suited only to refining purposes. 
 
 Refining sugars above No. 7 Dutch standard in natural color are 
 
14 
 
 intrinsically more valuable proportionally in refined outturn than 
 refining sugars No. 7 Dutch standard or below in natural color, and 
 should therefore pay a higher rate of duty. Refining sugars above 
 No. 10 Dutch standard in natural color also produce a more valuable 
 proportionate outturn in refined product than can be obtained from 
 sugars above No. 7 and not above No. 10 Dutch standard in natural 
 color. Consequently, muscovadoes should pay a higher rate of 
 duty. Lower grades of refining sugar are most extensively im¬ 
 ported and used for refining, simply on account of the demands of 
 consumers for the cheaper grades of refined sugars. That such 
 grades cannot, however, be obtained, in the relative proportion 
 required for consumption, from high-grade light-colored raw sugars 
 alone, is an absolute fact. (See schedules of cargo analyses herein, 
 showing the comparative crystallizable strength of imported refin¬ 
 ing sugars of natural color; see also page 28, section III, R. A. S. 
 Q., showing comparative cost of refining.) 
 
 Consumers demand the cheaper grades of refined sugars for con¬ 
 sumption in preference to imported muscovado sugars that have 
 been defecated or semi-refined in the country of production. Mus¬ 
 covado sugars, in general, are unfit to eat, unless defecated by pre- 
 cipitants. Natural draining of concentrated raw sugar or melado 
 does not sufficiently eliminate impurities therefrom for purposes of 
 consumption. When thus freed from molasses and impurities, and 
 made brighter, muscovadoes test higher, and are more valuable 
 than drained or partially-drained sugars, and should pay higher 
 duty accordingly when imported suitable for consumption. 
 
 Nevertheless, refiners can, from the lower grade of refining sugars, 
 including melado, produce pure refined sugars golden-hued to white 
 in color, for consumption, with which raw foreign muscovadoes can 
 never compete successfully in prices, neither under an equitable 
 tariff classification, nor with the duty on all sugars abolished. 
 Foreign muscovadoes therefore now naturally seek tariff protection 
 to enable them to supersede American refined sugars for imme¬ 
 diate consumption, and, for a pretense, malign the present tarifl 
 classifications and demand tariff modifications discriminative against 
 the numerous low grades of refining sugars from which the bulk of 
 American refined sugars now required by the masses for consump¬ 
 tion are produced. As with centrifugals, this is also a question of 
 Foreign versus American interests and industries. 
 
 Efforts of the Treasury officials to increase the revenue from im¬ 
 ported sugars have culminated in evaporating moisture from cargo 
 samples of raw sugars, and raising the test line to suit dry samples 
 when levying duty, under the pretense that “ the percentages of 
 sugar in the dry substance are the practical equivalents of those 
 (the percentages) specified of sugars as imported before the water 
 is evaporated.” In the matter of raw sugar, the merchant buys 
 and pays for the sugar composite, impurities, moisture, and all. 
 I he government weighs the cargo on arrival, charges duty on every 
 pound of moisture, and then cooly fixes the rate of duty at pleasure, 
 by levying on samples wherein the texture of the cargo of imported 
 sugar has been changed by forced evaporation. 
 
15 
 
 Whatever the intent, this method of increasing the revenue from 
 sugar discriminates against low grades and in favor of centrifugals, 
 Javas, &c., as will be seen in the following schedule of different 
 kiuds of imported raw sugars, which, avoiding extremes, exhibits 
 the range of percentages of natural moisture purchased and con¬ 
 tained in 100 parts of sugar texture, as sampled and analyzed on 
 arrival of the cargoes: 
 
 Melado contains 10 to 15 parts water. 
 
 Iloilo sugars, 3 to 6 water. 
 
 Molasses sugars, 4 to 6 water. 
 
 Formosa sugars, 6 to 8 water. 
 
 Porto Rico sugars, 4 to 7 water. 
 
 Pernambuco sugars, 3 to 6 water. 
 
 Egyptian sugars, 3 to 6 water. 
 
 Cuba clayed, 1 to 3£ water. 
 
 Beet sugars, 1| to 4 water. 
 
 Manila sugars, 3 to 7 water. 
 
 Muscovado sugars, 4 to 7 water. 
 
 China sugars, 3 to 5| water. 
 
 Chuyang sugars, 3 to 5 water. 
 
 Dullooah sugars, 3 to 5| water. 
 
 Peruvian concrete, 6 to 8 water. 
 
 Guadeloupe sugars, 4 to 8 water. 
 
 Javas (except low,) £ to 2 water. 
 
 Centrifugal sugars £ to 2 water. 
 
 Forced evaporation of moisture, which must be restored in re¬ 
 fining, would greatly reduce the weight of sugar composite im¬ 
 ported, every pound of which is charged with duty, and force the 
 crystallizable strength of most low grade-sugars above 90 and 94, 
 by changing their natural texture. Why not also eliminate im¬ 
 purities, including invert sugars from the lower-grade sugars, and 
 force them up to 99 at once for levying duty? The masterly mois¬ 
 ture evaporation or dried sample process produces results like the 
 following: 
 
 A cargo of centrifugal sugar enters and tests, crystals, 95.5; im¬ 
 purities, 3.5 ; water, 1. Evaporate the water, and 99 parts become 
 100 parts, and test, crystals, 96.5 ; impurities, 3.5. A cargo of cen¬ 
 trifugal or Java sugar is imported, and tests, crystals, 94; impuri¬ 
 ties, 4; water, 2. Dry out the water, and 98 parts become 100 
 parts, which test, crystals, 96; impurities, 4—all right for centri¬ 
 fugals. On the other hand, a cargo of molasses sugars enters that 
 tests, crystals, 89 ; impurities, 5.60; water, 5.40. Dry the samples, 
 and 94.60 parts become 100 parts, that test, crystals, 94.40; impuri¬ 
 ties, 5.60. A cargo of Pernambuco sugar is imported, which tests, 
 crystals, 86.10; impurities, 7.78; water, 6.12. Dry the samples, 
 and 93.88 parts become 100, and test, crystals, 92.22; impurities, 
 7.78. A cargo of Porto Rico sugar enters that tests, crystals, 88.40; 
 impurities, 4.85; water, 6.75. Dry the samples, and 93.25 parts 
 become 100 parts, and test, crystals, 95.15; impurities, 4.85. A 
 cargo of Martinique sugar is imported that tests, crystals, 84.40; 
 impurities, 8.22; water, 7.38. Dry the samples, and 92.62 parts 
 
16 
 
 become 100, and test, crystals, 91.78; impurities, 8.22, and so on. 
 
 Evaporation liberates a proportion of molasses impurities; con¬ 
 sequently no increase in the percentage of impurities is allowed 
 above, the result of evaporating moisture from raw cane sugar being 
 to diminish the proportion of molasses impurities therein, and in¬ 
 crease the crystalline qualities thereof, just as, by natural purging 
 and evaporation of melado, dry muscovado sugar is produced. 
 
 Under the dry test innovation a cargo of naturally dark low- 
 quality sugar, useless for consumption until refined at more than 
 double the cost of refining centrifugals, only capable of producing 
 a refined outturn far below the usual outturn from centrifugals in 
 value, may be doomed to pay duty not only on every pound of the 
 full weight of the cargo, water and all, but at the high rate of duty 
 charged upon centrifugals and Javas naturally of a grade and quality 
 above 94 when imported. Nothing could better illustrate the in¬ 
 justice of uniform duty on sugar—whether to 10, 13, 16, or on all 
 sugars—than the illegal discriminations resulting from changing 
 the texture of imported sugar by dry sampling, to increase the rev¬ 
 enue therefrom. On the other hand, lumbering the tariff and cus¬ 
 toms business with different rates of duty on sugar for every num¬ 
 ber in color, and every degree of crystallizable strength therein 
 determined, or any approach to such a system, would be irrational. 
 
 The Treasury Department method of drying samples of sugar 
 for testing cargoes of imported sugars, to levy duty thereon, thus 
 changing the texture thereof, is simply absurd, and an outrage upon 
 merchants and refiners which should at once cease, and better 
 methods obtain. As usual, the pernicious results fall upon con¬ 
 sumers. 
 
 Refiners who petition for and advocate a uniform duty to No. 13 
 simply propose to apply trade thuggism to their own throats. How 
 long do such men imagine it will be before Cuba, Demerara and 
 Company, with their English and American allies, will fully refine 
 su .^ ar .® ^ or ^ 8 country ? Rest assured that these foreign powers 
 Wlb ’ “ success ^ now > find means to carry a uniform duty to 16; 
 and, when fully prepared for successful competition with American 
 refiners they will find means to have the sugar duty abolished in 
 short order. 
 
 The hopes of American consumers, and for American industries, 
 in regar to sugar, are in the retention of a classification sugar 
 tariff which, when honestly applied, provides us with all grades of 
 ? u S. a ^ m aterial for the production of all grades of refined sugars 
 hppt ^nrl ^ consu mers, and in pushing forward home production of 
 of th 7iZT? U F T * Any Chan S e from the equitable uniformity 
 of t T is ^rous. Even a reduction 
 
 graded ^ Sh ° Uld ° btain > ou S ht t0 be uniform on all 
 
 advocate^ a Ve a & er ^ s foreign sugar producers who 
 
 £r.ss ‘isr ,r 'raiS >•* “i 
 
 that thp h a UP*. ' Jn tills P 01n t it is enough to say 
 
 the greater® heir commWo°n3. lmPOrted SUSar8 00nsi g Ded t0 them 
 
17 
 
 Importers and buyers of foreign sugars who advocate and petition 
 for a uniform duty to No. 13 simply desire to accommodate trade, 
 and conduct it upon some substantial basis. Any sugar tariff that 
 remains permanent will suit their business, and as the sky of trade 
 manipulations in sugar-tariff plans seems auspicious for the success 
 of these plausible uniform duty to No. 13 designs against consumers’ 
 interests and rights, they fall into line on that side, some at the 
 request of their customers, and some to suit their individual trade 
 interests or prejudices; as a matter of course, thinking little and 
 caring less about the interests of American consumers, industries, 
 and revenue, beyond the question of how much profit can be cleared 
 by each transaction. 
 
 The Secretary of the Treasury clamors for forty millions of dol¬ 
 lars revenue from sugars. This must be drawn from the food 
 necessities of American consumers, the great mass of whom can 
 only afford to buy the lowest grades of refined sugar, and must, 
 under a uniform duty to No. 13, reduce consumption, because they 
 would be compelled to pay the price of higher grades, or go with¬ 
 out; yet it is proposed by uniformists virtually to prohibit the im¬ 
 portation of low grades of raw sugar, from which we now actually 
 receive more than 50 per cent, of the revenue from sugar. Although 
 through frauds, which a uniform duty to No. 13 proposes to legalize, 
 we apparently receive more than if of the duty from sugar, the No. 
 13 project proposes to curtail the Secretary’s present revenue re¬ 
 sources from low grades merely to fatten its projectors. 
 
 Refiners of sugar known well enough that glucose and other 
 adulterants can best be employed to their advantage and profit when 
 Centrifugals, Javas, and other high grades are used for refining; the 
 higher the crystallizable strength of raw sugar the more glucose 
 may be added. Centrifugals testing 95 to 98 can be safely reduced 
 with glucose at an enormous profit to refiners, when it would not 
 pay with Manillas and other low-grade sugars. Every pound of 
 glucose used reduces importations of raw sugar to the same extent. 
 Uniform duty to No. 13 would simply encourage and increase the use of 
 glucose, by shutting out low grades and providing easy and profitable means 
 of offsetting the necessary labor and materials expended in the more skill¬ 
 ful and commendable process of refining low grades of raw sugars up to 
 the standard required by consumers without cheating them with adulterants. 
 
 It is irrational to pretend that this government cannot collect the 
 full revenue from sugar under the present classification tariff, and a 
 proviso authorizing the use of analysis and a test line as adjuncts 
 to the Dutch standard, to counteract the increasing practice of dis¬ 
 coloring foreign sugars of high intrinsic grade to evade duty. 
 When public interests, American industries, and consumers’ wants 
 are equitably considered, there is not a tenable objection against 
 the present tariff classification of sugar for levying duty. The very 
 fact that the principal advocates of and petitioners for a uniform 
 duty to No. 13 strenuously oppose the use of the polariscope and 
 analysis for testing sugars is ominous of fraud. 
 
 Adopt such tests and discolorations must cease. So long as out¬ 
 side color is allowed to be the standard for levying duty, merchants 
 
18 
 
 will import, and producers will make, discolored sugars of the high- 
 est intrinsic quality; and it is boldly sought to legalize this treach¬ 
 ery against our government, and to deprive consumers of the re¬ 
 fined product from low grades, thus shut out, by obtaining a 
 uniform duty to No. 13. These uniformists complain that the 
 suo-ar trade is unsettled. Who and what unsettled it? Foreign 
 producers in Cuba and Demerara, and their American allies, by 
 discoloring natural grades of sugars, from No. 11 to above 13 Dutch 
 standard in natural color (which all centrifugals and vacuum-pan 
 sugars of intrinsic grade above 90 or 91 inevitably are intrinsically) 
 to evade duty, and by the maudlin efforts of unskilled Treasury 
 officials to counteract the fraudulent practices, now pressed too far 
 by “ truth and true analyses of the sugar question,” the frauds 
 must be legalized to quiet the sugar trade by a uniform duty to 13 
 Dutch standard, while American consumers are to be robbed of low- 
 grade sugar product, and American industries must be throttled to 
 make the fortunes of these allied uniformists. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, the agents, importers, refiners, and merchants who, 
 with their foreign and American allies, advocate and petition Con¬ 
 gress for a uniform duty on sugar to No. 16, to No. 13, or to No. 
 10, only seek to enrich themselves. This, as the world now goes, 
 is called business, and needs no comment; but the plans by which 
 they propose to accomplish this (among which appear that of a 
 uniform duty to No. 13 or 10 or 16) are pregnant with gigantic evils 
 and outrages, which their success would entail upon American con¬ 
 sumers and American industries, whereby also the consumption 
 of, and revenue from, sugar would be decreased inversely to our 
 growing population, and the existing system of revenue robbery be 
 legalized by Congress. 
 
 Uniform duty on raw sugar to No. 13 or to No. 10 means that 
 the raw sugar material we require shall be semi-refined in Cuba 
 and other sugar-producing countries contiguous to the United 
 States and in Hawaii, at an annual industrial loss to this country of 
 at least $40,000,000. It means the virtual prostration of the sugar¬ 
 refining and sugar-producing industries of the United States, and 
 the building up of foreign sugar-manufacturing industries at our 
 expense. It means a heavy loss of revenue from sugar or a higher 
 rate of taxation than at present on every pound of sugar we con¬ 
 sume. It means legalized oppression and robbery of consumers of 
 sugar, by virtually depriving them of low grades of pure refined 
 sugar, now obtained in quantity from low grades of raw-sugar 
 ma ena . t means adulteration of high grades of refined sugar, 
 which constitute the only possible out-turn from centrifugals and 
 oSmJnno ^ su ^? ar ® * n sufficient quantity for consumption, with corn 
 fee T S t UPP y the ' O8s . 0f low grades now required and used for 
 refining. It means American bondage to foreign sugar producers 
 
 enrichment oiT f °‘' £ ear3 tS corae - ^means the further 
 
 annualW tohl^L b ^^(l° n U fifteen t0 twent y millions of dollars 
 sulr y itme!,n a ?t t0 he ^°,000,000 she now draws from us for 
 suear frauds ml'Utn exclus,ou of all moans of detecting high-grade 
 
 ° frauds upon the revenue, and a frightful increase of robbery 
 
19 
 
 by false sampling and false weighing. It means easy chairs for 
 Treasury officials and customs officers, and the enrichment of official 
 moiety hunters and scourgers of honest merchants who create and 
 sustain American commerce. It means death or lingering sickness 
 to the cane-sugar productive industries of Louisiana, and the crush¬ 
 ing in embryo of beet and sorghum sugar productive enterprises in 
 this country. It means colossal fortunes to Cuban and other foreign 
 speculators and their American allies who petition Congress and 
 this committee for uniform duty on all sugar to No. 13 Dutch stand¬ 
 ard in color, or, failing in that, to No. 10, to the exclusion of lower 
 grades, and without analysis or hinderance of any kind to check 
 their raids upon American consumers, industries, and revenue, 
 already suffering enormously through high-grade sugar frauds thus 
 sought to be perpetuated. 
 
 Raw cane sugar being composed of white crystals of sugar and 
 impurities which form black molasses, the proportions of this ad¬ 
 mixture produces varying shades of color, which have rightly been 
 recognized and accepted as reliable indications of the quality and 
 value of raw cane sugars when in their normal condition. Outside 
 eoloration, intended to deceive as to the true value of sugars, having 
 been successfully practiced to evade duty, it has become necessary 
 to employ analysis as an adjunct to the color standard, in order to 
 accurately determine the actual quality and value of imported sugars 
 for the purpose of levying duty thereon correctly. 
 
 Uniform duty on raw sugars must be arbitrarily discriminative, 
 and would therefore interfere with and largely prohibit importations 
 of entirely raw sugar material by encouraging the foreign industries 
 of semi-refining and centrifugation of raw-sugar material to the 
 detriment of home manufacturing and sugar productive industries, 
 interfere with the rights of consumers, and curtail consumption; 
 while the only practical duty discrimination in the present sugar 
 tariff is the uniform 25 per cent, addendum thereto. 
 
 The present tariff classification of meladaand other foreign sugars 
 are substantially in accordance with trade usage throughout the 
 world, and therefore are adequate and equitable for levying duty 
 on imported sugars, being peculiarly adapted for such purpose. 
 Consequently, they ought to be retained. Should the following 
 changes or modififications of the present sugar tariff be adopted sub¬ 
 stantially—reasons for which have already been presented by the 
 writer—consumption will rapidly increase, and the general results 
 be eminently beneficial and satisfactory to the people of this coun¬ 
 try, and produce over $30,000,000 revenue per annum. 
 
 One. Abolish the 25 per cent, ad valorem addendum altogether, 
 and also reduce the present specific duty on all raw sugars not above 
 16 Dutch standard in natural color, subject to the 92 line provision 
 at least half a cent per pound pro rata throughout. 
 
 Two. All raw sugars under No. 10 Dutch standard in color, con¬ 
 taining ninety-two (92) per cent, or more of crystallizable sugar, to 
 pay the same duty as sugars above No. 10 and not above No 13 
 Dutch standard in color. 
 
 Three. Strike out of the present sugar tariff* the words, “ after 
 
20 
 
 being refined,” contained in the section relating to the adulterations 
 and colorations of refined sugars. 
 
 Four. Equitable samples of imported sugars to be secured and 
 used for purposes of appraisement as soon as practicable after the 
 arrival and entry of such sugars, and the actual condition of such 
 samples, when first selected, shall determine the grade and quality 
 of the cargoes they represent for levying duty thereon. 
 
 During the reading of the paper the following discussions took 
 place: 
 
 Mr. Tucker. How much sugar do we consume per capita in this 
 country? 
 
 Mr. Brown. The per capita consumption last year was thirty- 
 eight pounds. That includes molasses, melada, and all products of 
 the raw material. We should have received fifty millions of rev¬ 
 enue from sugar in 1879 instead of about forty millions, if it had 
 not been for the frauds and swindles committed upon the Treasury. 
 * * * * * * 
 
 Mr. Dunnell. These sugars which you denominate centrifugal 
 sugars, are they below the grade of No. 13 ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. They are usually between No. 11 or 12 and No. 14; 
 from that up to 16. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. You say that a uniform rate of duty on sugar up to 
 No. 13 Dutch Standard would diminish the amount of sugar re¬ 
 quired for consumption? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. Do you mean to say that the gross amount of sugar 
 consumed in this country would be lessened? 
 
 Mr. Brown. No, sir, but the gross amount of raw material re¬ 
 quired (being of a higher grade) would be far less for manufactur¬ 
 ing purposes. Consequently, every pound less would be so much 
 less duty to the government. 
 
 * * * * * * 
 
 Mr. Garfield. Are the sugars that are produced iu the Hawaiian 
 Islands centrifugal sugars ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. No, sir; but by the industry expended there the 
 sugars are made of high grade, which we must pay for. 
 
 Mr. Garfield. Do they use the centrifugal process in the Ha¬ 
 waiian Islands ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Not that I am aware of at present. They bring the 
 sugars up by a high degree of draining, and they also clay their 
 sugars. o j j 
 
 Mr. Tucker. How many million pounds of sugar are introduced 
 from the Sandwich Islands into this country ud to No 7 ’ 
 
 Mr. Brown. None. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. How many between No. 7 and No 10 ’ 
 
 Mr. Brown. Eight million pounds. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. And between No. 10 and No. 13 ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Sixteen million pounds. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. And from No. 13 up to No 16’ 
 
 Mr. Brown. Fifteen million pounds. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. And how much above No. 16? 
 
21 
 
 Mr. Brown. Only one million pounds. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. Have you any statistics to show the different grades 
 of sugar imported into this country from the Hawaiian Islands be¬ 
 fore the treaty with the Hawaiian Government, under which sugar 
 is admitted free ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes; but I have not the statistics with me. I will 
 furnish them to the committee. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. Be kind enough also to furnish to the committee at 
 the same time a statement showing the quality of sugars now im¬ 
 ported from the Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I will do so. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Also state the effect which that Hawaiian treaty has 
 had on the price of sugars in San Francisco, if it has had any effect. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I will do so. 
 
 Mr. Garfield. Do the Hawaiian Islands refine their sugar for 
 their own use? 
 
 Mr. Brown. They refine it by claying it and bringing it up to the 
 standard of fair Louisiana eating sugar. 
 
 Mr. Garfield. Do they buy refined sugars from us ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Not a pound. 
 
 Mr. Gareield. Do they buy refined sugars from anybody ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Not a pound that I am aware of. I never have seen 
 any statistics from the British Government (with which I am in con¬ 
 stant communication) or from France, showing that they do. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do you know who they are who are raising sugar in 
 the Hawaiian Islands? 
 
 Mr. Brown. It is simply a continuation of the old process of 
 raising sugar by the aborigines. Of course it brings in Americans 
 and American capital and other people, who share the profits. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do you know any large American capitalist who is 
 engaged in this sugar business in the Hawaiian Islands ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I shall be able to give you those facts, but I have not 
 embodied them here. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. Have you any information on the question as to 
 whether the sugar producers in the Hawaiian Islands are in the 
 habit of importing and employing Chinese laborers? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I have some information on that point. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. If you have any accurate information on the sub¬ 
 ject I wish you also to submit it. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I shall do so. 
 
 * * * * * * 
 
 Mr. Garfield. Define what you mean by thuggism in trade. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I mean what is sometimes called cut-throatism; that 
 is, the attempt of one party by any means to obtain supremacy in 
 trade, thereby strangling ever} 7 interest that comes in the way. 
 
 * * ;jc 3|e 3|e 
 
 Mr. Gibson. What is the name of the gentleman who furnished 
 you with these figures in regard to sugar raising in Louisiana? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Mr. Schlatrie. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Have you got statistics showing the American pro¬ 
 duction of sugar for the last forty years ? 
 
22 
 
 Mr. Brown. Not here, but I will furnish such with pleasure. 
 ****** * 
 
 Mr. Brown here exhibited to the committee two small glass 
 phials, one containing very dark sugar of large grains, and the 
 other containing what appeared to be a pure white sugar, and he 
 informed the committee that these two specimens were identically 
 the same sugar and that that sugar had been recently entered at 
 the port of Boston in the dark shape and had been admitted as 
 number 10 sugar. The white sugar in one of the specimens was 
 nothing else than the dark sugar crushed, and he invited any 
 member of the committee to test the accuracy of that statement by 
 crushing some of the large dark colored grains—which Mr. Gar¬ 
 field proceeded to do, with the same result. 
 
 Mr. Garfield. Do you mean to say that if these coarse crystals 
 are pulverized the result will be a clear white sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes. This sugar I pulverized myself. It was 
 entered at No. 10, while it should have been entered at No. 20. 
 
 The Chairman. What became of the coloring matter that appears 
 in the dark specimen ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. The coloring matter in this only amounts to one per 
 cent. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. The coloring matter is simply exterior to the 
 crystals ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. These crystals are built up in vacuum 
 pans where the moisture is thrown out and then a mixture of 
 molasses is thrown in, and this is the result. The intrinsic color of 
 this sugar is No. 20. 
 
 Mr. Conger. Do I understand you to say that this specimen of 
 light-colored sugar, which you exhibit, was crushed by yourself 
 from these dark grains ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir; and I should be happy to have any mem¬ 
 ber of the committee take some of these coarse grains and crush 
 them here. 
 
 No^ 1*0^ ARFIELD " su & ar > as I understand you, was entered as 
 Mr. Brown. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Garfield And this white sugar is the same as the dark 
 sugar when crushed ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes. 
 
 except mmhing > 'it ?^° 0t ^ er °P era * ; * on has been performed upon it, 
 Mr. Brown. No, sir. 
 
 Mr! Bkown L Y E t nd *** dark - colored sa S ar ^ No. 10 in color? 
 
 loYsNo^oTn color ? d ^ SUgar produced % crushing No. 
 Mr. Brown. Yes. 
 
 effects 9 GaEFIELD - Would a similar Process as to No. 7 have the same 
 
 Mr. Brown. No ; not if it is No. 7 natural color 
 Mr. Garfield. Why not ? or * 
 
23 
 
 Mr. Brown. Simply beeause No. 7 is of itself carried as high in 
 color as it can be without further refining. 
 
 Mr. Garfield. This specimen (holding up the dark-colored sugar) 
 has a yellowish straw color like wheat. When crushed it is like 
 flour. There has been no artificial coloring, you say, except in so 
 far as crushing it is an artificial process, but the one specimen is the 
 natural wheat and the other is the ground flour of the same wheat. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes sir ; these are both the natural product. 
 
 Mr. Garfield. There is no coloring matter in either of these 
 specimens ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. No. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. The crystal of sugar is always in itself white, is it 
 not ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes; pure white. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. The coloring matter in the specimen which by 
 crushing became white was therefore merely on the surface of the 
 crystal ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Entirely so. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. The crystal itself being white, the substance when 
 crushed is white, except the mere infinitesimal coloring on the 
 surface ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Garfield. What is this yellowish color on the surface of 
 these crystals ? Is it a film of molasses ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. In this case it is simply coloring matter or molasses. 
 The syrup may have been burned a trifle. But in this other case 
 (holding up a specimen of Demerara sugar) it is a different matter. 
 To produce this color in Demerara they use lime in various forms. 
 That is the case particularly for our benefit. Demerara sugar in¬ 
 tended for England is not limed to that extent. 
 
 * * * * * * 
 
 Mr. Gibson. You use the phrase “ making sugar.” Do we make 
 sugar in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. In using the word “ make,” I simply mean the re- 
 duction of cane juice to a crystallizable form. That I call making 
 sugar. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. The crystal exists in the sugar in nature ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. And the whole process of making sugar is to sepa¬ 
 rate the wood fiber and the water from the pure crystal ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. And that process discloses the crystals ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. No, sir; the crystals are disclosed at first, inasmuch 
 as they are formed of molasses and sugar. 
 
 * * * * * * * 
 
 Mr. Garfield having in the meantime crushed some of the coarse 
 sugar, showed the result to the members of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. Then, instead of the polariscope, all that you would 
 want to ascertain the real grade of the sugar would be a pestle and 
 mortar ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. That would amply settle the difficulty. It would 
 
24 
 
 would amply settle it until you came to discoloration by means of 
 lime, or of lime subjected to the action of sulphuric acid. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. But with the class of sugars that you have been 
 speaking of, a pestle and mortar would disclose the fraudulent 
 coloring ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Mills. What did that sugar cost ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I was informed that the cost of it was either 6 or 6^ 
 cents a pound, duty unpaid. It was entered as No. 10, and paid 
 duty at that rate, 
 
 Mr. Kelley. What ought that sugar to have been worth if it 
 were No. 10 ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. If it were No. 10, it should have been worth about 
 4 cents a pound in the producing country, duty unpaid. 
 
 Mr. Conger. What would it cost to reduce this dark sugar [in¬ 
 dicating one of the specimens] in a grinding mill to this white 
 sugar [indicating the other specimen] ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. One-eighth of one of per cent. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. If every family kept its own pestle and mortar, it 
 would only cost the original investment of capital in the pestle and 
 mortar ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes. 
 
 * * * * * 
 
 * * 
 
 Mr. Morrison. You said that you were going to talk in the in¬ 
 terest of consumers, and you have been making pretty much the 
 same argument as is made by refiners of low-grade sugars. Do I 
 understand you to reason that the interest of the consumers and 
 the interest of the refiners of low-grade sugars are identical ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I do not reason in that way. 
 
 Mr. Morrison. Then I do not understand you. 
 
 Mr. Brown. A branch of manufacturing trade may of itself be 
 very profitable and yet be in accordance with the interests of the 
 consumer, while another manufacturer in the same branch of busi¬ 
 ness may so manipulate his business by cheating the consumer as 
 to make money much faster. 
 
 ****** * * 
 
 Mr. Mills. Coming back to those two specimens of sugar which 
 you have shown us, did I understand you to say that that sugar was 
 admitted at a low grade ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes; it was admitted at No. 10 and should have 
 been rated at No. 20. 
 
 * * * * * * * * 
 
 Mr. Mills. What is the best kind of a tariff on sugar—specific 
 or advalorem ? * 
 
 Mr. Brown. The specific tariff is preferable for the simple reason 
 that the moment you turn to a direct ad-valoren tariff (not in prin- 
 
 Cip l e 111 P r ?? tice ) those frauds are diverted into another channel. 
 Mr. Mills. How would you have the duty specific ? 
 
 Mr. Brown I would lmve such a specific duty as will in sub- 
 stance retain the present order of classification of suaar by the 
 
25 
 
 color standard up to whatever you choose to make it in crystallizable 
 strength—say No. 92. 
 
 Mr. Mills. How are you going to detect frauds if you are to be 
 governed by the color standard ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. As an adjunct of the color standard, I would intro¬ 
 duce analysis or grinding, or any other process by which the Secre¬ 
 tary of the Treasury would be able to determine the grades of 
 sugar. Either the polariscope or analysis will answer the purpose. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. Or grinding? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. Was that (indicating the dark-colored specimen) the 
 natural coloring of that sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. No, sir; it is not a natural color for that sugar. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. Why is it not ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Simply because after that sugar is worked in the 
 vacuum pan it is white, or nearly so. If this sugar were left at its 
 natural color, it would be up to No. 19 at least. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Do you suppose that that sugar which was entered 
 here as No. 10 was purchased from the producer as No. 20 ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. The producer certainly sold it as No. 20, and it cost 
 about 6 cents a pound. 
 
 Mr. Mills. And it was brought here and entered as No. 10 ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Mills. Then, would it not have been safer for the Treasury 
 to rely upon the foreign invoice as to the value of the sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. It would under existing circumstances, considering 
 the immense growth of these transactions. . 
 
 Mr. Tucker. If this sugar was rated by the Dutch standard, is 
 it No. 10 Dutch standard ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. It is not No. 10 unless we choose to measure every¬ 
 thing else in the same way, and unless we make it the custom and 
 law that everything is to be determined by outward appearance. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. Does not the Dutch standard make color-line the 
 test ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. The Dutch standard as applied in Holland and as 
 applied with us is two different things. In Holland they would not 
 take that crystal (indicating) and compare it with the Dutch standard 
 until they had crushed the crystal. We here take it and compare 
 it with the Dutch standard outwardly, and admit the sugar at a low 
 rate, imagining that the law compels that to be done. Ine ellorts 
 by the Treasury Department to counteract these things have e o 
 this inevitable conflict, and to all the circulars which the Secretary 
 has been obliged to issue in regard to sampling of sugars. iy • 
 Simply because there is no way until Congress says that there sha 
 be some other method of ascertaining the intrinsic color ot sugars 
 besides the outward appearance as compared with the Dutc s an ar 
 
 Mr. Gibson. What other method do you suggest . 
 
 Mr. Brown. I suggest that all sugars shall be subject* to the test 
 of analysis. Polarization is of itself quite competent under honest 
 management to determine the crystallizable strength ot sugar, our 
 it may he easily mismanaged. But if we take analysis, l can 
 
26 
 
 readily done. A man can analyze twenty samples of sugar 
 altogether, and go through the analyzation very rapidly. I would 
 undertake to have it done in from fifteen to thirty minutes, except 
 in the matter of determining the ash, which must be done by burn¬ 
 ing the sugar, and that takes a little longer time. Analysis is per¬ 
 fect in that regard, but if you add to the anaysis the Dutch standard, 
 and crushing the sugar into the proper condition for comparing it 
 with the Dutch standard, then it is impossible to perpetrate fraud. 
 
 Mr. Garfield. If instead of receiving that sugar in the custom 
 house according to the standard which would make it No. 10, the 
 appraiser were authorized to crush it (as I have done,) he then could 
 grade it according to its intrinsic color. In other words, if the 
 appraiser were permitted to go by intrinsic rather than by external 
 color, he would get nearer the truth ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. He would get nearer the truth. 
 
 The committee here adjourned until to-morrow. 
 
 Washington, D. C., January 30, 1880. 
 
 Mr. Henry A. Brown came before the committee and concluded 
 the statement commenced by him yesterday. He said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: As to the point of discoloration, I 
 mentioned the fact yesterday that it was impracticable to color low- 
 grade sugars provided they were of intrinsic color below No. 10 
 Dutch standard, and provided they had not been turned into 
 centrifugals at all. Any one of these sugars (indicating the speci¬ 
 mens before him) will illustrate that fact. There is but one possible 
 way by which anybody can raise the grade of color of a low grade 
 of sugar which is below 10, provided it is not brought into a centri¬ 
 fugal grade or crystal, and that way is by heating or evaporating 
 the moisture in the sugar. This process, of course, takes from the 
 raw material that is imported and on which duty is paid, and it 
 increases the crystallizable strength on the amount of crystals in 
 the sugar that is left. The more you evaporate or eliminate moist¬ 
 ure and other impurities the more you increase the crystals in the 
 sugar. This sample [putting some’of it in a mortar] is a verv low- 
 grade sugar, below No. 7 Dutch standard. You may grind" it as 
 much as you like and the color will still remain below No. 7 
 [demonstrating.] The moment that you go above No. 90 in crystal¬ 
 lizable strength of sugar, and increase the size of the crystals, this 
 sort of thing can no longer be done without disclosing a higher 
 grade of sugar or a higher intrinsic color. Consequently, no Tow- 
 grade sugars can evade the duty under the Dutch standard except 
 by false weighing, and undoubtedly that is done to a great extent. 
 But, otherwise the low-grade sugars are absolutely at the mercy of 
 any common examiner who chooses to put honesty into the exami¬ 
 nation, and he cannot be deceived. 
 
 Mr. Conger. Can you take a high-grade sugar and color it so that 
 when ground in that way it will not disclose its true character? 
 
 Mr. Brown. It is impossible, provided the coloration has not per¬ 
 vaded it thoroughly. Any man can take that sugar, carry it to the 
 
27 
 
 fire and heat it, thus eliminating moisture, increasing the cr}'stals, 
 and eliminating with the moisture a portion of the coloring matter. 
 Consequently, the grade of the sugar comes up. It is not so with 
 the crystals which I now show to "the committee. You may heat 
 them or do with them what you like and still the intrinsic color is 
 the same. 
 
 I now come to the Demerara coloring of sugars. One of my 
 agents has sent me samples of Demerara sugar and another of my 
 agents in Cuba is getting other samples for me, wherein there is 
 no discoloration of any importance. He takes the sugar before the 
 coloration takes place. Now, this sugar (holding up a sample) is 
 colored by what we call burnt molasses. Formerly they colored 
 sugar in Demerara by the use of sulphate of lime or lime in excess. 
 What was the difficulty there ? The difficulty was very evident. 
 They found that by the introduction of too much lime, particularly 
 of sulphate of lime, the crystallizable strength of the sugar was 
 reduced and true dextrine turned out, which is an imitation of 
 glucose. Therefore, it was unmarketable, and that mode of color¬ 
 ation was abandoned for the natural colors which they now employ. 
 When Mr. McKay says that they do not use acids in coloring sugars 
 in Demerara, he tells the truth. Of course they do not. It would 
 not pay to use them any longer. They discover their mistake in 
 using them, and therefore they no longer use sulphates of lime. 
 Why? Because they blackened their sugars so much and impreg¬ 
 nated them so much and turned so much of their crystallizable 
 sugar into glucose, that the market would not take such sugars, 
 and therefore the sugar growers in Demerara resorted to the natural 
 colors. That is the whole secret with the present troubles in the 
 Demerara sugars. Other modes may be used, but it is impossible 
 (in order to make it a profitable, practical operation) to discolor 
 sugar until the crystallizable strength of that sugar has been raised. 
 The moment you go beyond 90 you raise the crystallizable strength 
 of sugar and its value rapidly. Consequently, the Demerara people 
 no longer use a preparation of lime in the preparation of their 
 sugars, but when they get them up as high as 98 in crystallizable 
 strength, then the simplest thing in the world is to discolor the 
 exterior of the crystals (as I showed you yesterday.) They do it 
 just as it is done with rock candy, by first getting a crystal and 
 then building that crystal up by adding sugar to it. The bigger 
 the grain the better and stronger is the crystal, until they even 
 reach as high as- 99| per cent. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. Show us by an experiment that this sugar [pointing 
 to a sample] is colored externally. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. That sugar is colored simply by caramelizing the 
 strike. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. It has been asserted here that there is no artificial 
 coloring of Demerara sugar. Now, if you can establish that there 
 is such "coloring, and that it is a fraud, why not do it, instead of 
 simply resting upon argument and assertion ? 
 
 [Mr. Brown proceeded to make the experiment by pouring some 
 
28 
 
 coarse-grained sugar into a mortar, and by pulverizing it, the result 
 being a sugar much lighter in degree than the coarse sugar.] 
 
 Mr. Tucker. Is that the Demerara sugar with which you are 
 making that experiment ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes. This is only a single illustration, but it is 
 quite enough to show the intrinsic color ot this discolored sugar, by 
 which it will be found that the importers dodge one rate if not two 
 rates of duty. This would become two or three degrees lighter by 
 further pulverization. 
 
 Mr. Garfield. At what grade, under the Dutch standard, would 
 that sugar pass which you have just pulverized ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. This sugar, as pulverized now, would pass at the 
 grade of No. 14 Dutch standard. It came in below No. 7. 
 
 Mr. Garfield. That is, you have raised it seven degrees by pul¬ 
 verization. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. And by imperfect pulverization ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes. This sugar would come up to No. 16 very 
 readily. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. Is that dark sugar colored by artificial material. 
 
 Mr. Brown. It is colored down by burnt molasses—impurities 
 which may be termed caramel. 
 
 Mr. Gibson. The color matter may be a part of the same material 
 out of which the sugar itself is made ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir; it is the drainings from the sugar origi¬ 
 nally. After having raised the sugar to its crystallizable strength, 
 a certain percentage of the drainings is thrown back, thereby reduc¬ 
 ing the coloring to a sufficient degree. A Boston merchant testified 
 in a case that the agreement with the sugar makers was that the 
 sugar should test 96 degrees in crystallizable strength, but should 
 be colored so as to come in at No. 10 Dutch standard. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Where did you get that sample which you have 
 just shown us ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. 1 got my samples from cargoes. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Where did you get that particular sample ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. This particular sample came from one of my agents 
 in Cuba. I think it is generally known that I have been investi¬ 
 gating the matter thoroughly, and consequently must have agents. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. You said that this sugar had passed under No. 10. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I do not employ any sample until it has been act¬ 
 ually passed. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. If you got this sample from your agent in Deme¬ 
 rara, how can it have passed the custom-house? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I happened to have this one sample of Demerara 
 sugar at my room, and Itook it. Of course I state frankly that 
 this sample has not come in, but I have samples which have come in. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. I understood you to state that that sugar had 
 passed at the custom-house. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I shall show you right here samples that did pass. 
 Here [exhibiting a sample] is one that passed, only in this case the 
 sugar is blacker and worse than in the sample which I produced. 
 
29 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. Have you ever pulverized any of that sample? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Certainly. Here it is [exhibiting sample of lighter- 
 colored sugar.] Here is the pulverized sugar. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. That is a pulverization of the sugar which did pass ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Carlisle. In what custom-house did that sugar pass, and to 
 whom was it consigned? 
 
 Mr. Brown. It passed at the Hew York custom-house, but I am 
 unable to give data in regard to it, because my samples are so 
 numerous. I can trace this sugar right to the Government archives 
 if desirable. 
 
 Mr. Garfield. How, have you got any specimens of this wet 
 sugar dried, so as to show the difference in color between the wet 
 and the dried? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Ho; but that can be easily done by drying some at 
 the fire in this room. [A small quantity of the wet sugar was 
 placed upon the fire shovel and heated at the fire, the result being 
 to make its color somewhat lighter.] 
 
 Mr. Garfield. What do you recommend the committee to do? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I would recommend the committee to allow the 
 present tariff to remain as it is—Hutch standard and all—and to 
 add to the power of the Secretary authority to employ polarization, 
 which discovers immediately the crystallizable strength, and conse¬ 
 quently the market value, of sugar, and also to employ, when he 
 sees fit, analysis in order to detect other ingredients in the export 
 of refined sugar, lest he should be paying a drawback on sand and 
 other articles. With that combination, and with the line drawn 
 between what are known to be sugars that never rise above 91, all 
 sugars testing above 92 should pay the higher rate of duty. 
 
 Mr. Kelley. Would it not be well to insert in the tariff a pro¬ 
 vision that appraisers shall not appraise crystals of above a certain 
 size, so as to compel them to grind some of the sugar before ap¬ 
 praising ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I omitted to say that all sugars of all grades should 
 be ground and brought to the consistency, so to speak, of the Dutch 
 standard, which, as you see, [exhibiting a sample,] is a fine-ground 
 sugar, and consequently its intrinsic color is wholly shown. 
 
 Mr. Tucker. Suppose you have the intrinsic color absolutely 
 shown by grinding, would not the Dutch standard alone avail ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. The Dutch standard alone would avail, but, in case 
 of any question, the Secretary should still have authority to employ 
 analysis. 
 
 Mr. Garfield. Would the Dutch standard avail with wet sugar? 
 
 Mr. Brown. Perfectly, always. The grinding would not affect 
 the low-grade sugars or the wet sugars, and therefore should be 
 confined to the others. If the Secretary is authorized to adopt 
 these modes, the very moral power or moral suasion, so to speak, 
 which you have thus exerted on importers would immediately put 
 a stop to the coloration of high-grade sugars. But the Secretary 
 must have authority to do this thing. 
 
30 
 
 The Chairman (at the suggestion of Mr. Perot.) I am requested 
 to ask you whether you have ever been in Demerara ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I have not been personally. I have been in the 
 South American sugar-producing countries, and in very many 
 others, having been a great traveler. 
 
 The Chairman. I am also requested to ask you whether you are 
 familiar with sugar manufacture from the sugar cane ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. I will answer outside any questions which outsiders 
 may choose to put to me; but I prefer nowjo confine myself solely 
 to questions by the committee. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY A. BROWN. 
 
 The following paper was filed by Mr. Henry A. Brown: 
 
 Mr. Searles, apparently in defense of false classifications of high- 
 grade sugars as low grade sugars to evade duty, misstated in his 
 supplementary remarks before the committee on Saturday, January 
 31, that “ Mr. Brown began with 1877 and muscovado sugar/’ in 
 his (Mr. Brown’s) tabular statement of classifications of imported 
 sugars for duty in 1878, wherein I prove enormous frauds on the 
 revenue. 
 
 For the information of the honorable Committee on Ways and 
 Means, and to exhibit more fully the magnitude of the frauds per¬ 
 petrated by dissolving high-grade sugars to evade duty, which it is 
 purposed by uniform rate of duty to No. 13 Dutch standard to legal¬ 
 ize, I here present the compiled tabular statement and explanations 
 on this point contained in my “ Revised Analyses of the Sugar 
 Question,” from which I condensed my illustrations of false classifi¬ 
 cations on Thursday last before this committee. It will be seen 
 that I neither named muscovado sugars nor referred to them specifi¬ 
 cally in any manner in this connection. 
 
 The tabular deductions are as follows: 
 
 In the official statement in the Bureau of Statistics of average 
 foreign cost of raw sugars at places of shipment, computed in coin 
 on the basis of foreign prices current 'in the fiscal years 1876 and 
 1877, is recorded as follows in regard to sugars of natural color—in 
 other words, undoctored sugars : 
 
 Sugar not above No. 7. D. S., in color_ ^ e LP ound : 
 
 Sugar above 7, not above 10 D. S., in color"””.' 4 ^ C „ 8 
 
 Sugar above 10, not above 13 D. S. in color””” 47 c « 
 
 Average cost of low-grade sugar_ a ot. u 
 
 Melado and cane sirup_ (( 
 
 According to the sworn testimony of importers and refiners as 
 
 paid foreign P roducer s for raw sugars 
 imported in 1877, 1878, average as follows : 
 
 Sugar not above No. 7 D. S., in color 
 Sugar above 7, not above 10 D S., in' color " 
 Sugar above 10, not above 13 D. S., in color 
 Average cost of low-grade sugars 
 Melado and cane sirup_ 
 
 Per pound. 
 3.25 cents 
 
 3.75 “ 
 4.00 “ 
 3.66 “ 
 
 2.75 “ 
 
31 
 
 The following tables, XIII to XVIII inclusive, present a complete 
 exhibit of the grade classifications for duty of dutiable raw sugar 
 entered into consumption in the fiscal years 1876, 1877, 1878; de¬ 
 clared value thereof, cost, per pound, liquidated duties, and signifi¬ 
 cant comparisons, wherein the modus operandi of evading duty on 
 sugar of high grades by color-toning, false sampling, and under 
 classification is made vividly evident: 
 
 Grades of dutiable sugar entered into consumption: 
 
 1876 .534,822,824 lbs. 
 
 1877 .757,946,855 lbs. 
 
 1878 .860,287,182 lbs. 
 
 Declared value 
 above 10 D. S. 
 $20,344,948 
 37,501,481 
 41,516,497 
 
 Cost 
 per lb. 
 3.80c. 
 *4.94c. 
 t4.82c. 
 
 Liquidated 
 duty received. 
 $11,654,445 
 16,580,087 
 18,818,782 
 
 Total... 
 
 
 99,362,926 
 
 14.61c. 
 
 47,053,314 
 
 XIV. Sampled and classed above 7 N. A. 
 
 Declared value 
 
 Cost 
 
 Liquidated 
 
 
 10 D. S. 
 
 above 13 D. S. 
 
 per lb. 
 
 duty received. 
 
 1876. 
 
 
 $36,593,778 
 
 4.20c. 
 
 $21,628,822 
 
 1877. 
 
 
 29.748,890 
 
 34.92c. 
 
 15,107,928 
 
 1878. 
 
 
 33,232,883 
 
 |5.37c. 
 
 15,450,497 
 
 Total... 
 
 
 99,575,551 
 
 f4.75c. 
 
 52,187,247 
 
 XV. Sampled and classed above 10 N. A. 
 
 Declared value 
 
 Cost 
 
 Liquidated 
 
 
 13 D. S. 
 
 above 13 D. S. 
 
 per lb. 
 
 duty received. 
 
 1876. 
 
 
 $6,543,106 
 
 4.36c. 
 
 $4,092,846 
 
 1877. 
 
 
 4,371,003 
 
 **4.94c. 
 
 2,488,003 
 
 1878. 
 
 
 4,110,502 
 
 ft5.68c. 
 
 2,033,904 
 
 Total... 
 
 
 15,024,611 
 
 U4.83C. 
 
 8,614,753 
 
 XVI. Sampled and classed above 13 N. 
 
 Declared value 
 
 Cost 
 
 Liquidated 
 
 
 A. 16 D. S. 
 
 equals 16 D. S. 
 
 per lb. 
 
 duty received. 
 
 1876. 
 
 . 6,127,732 lbs. 
 
 $318,830 
 
 5.20c. 
 
 $207,593 
 
 1877. 
 
 ... 4,536,195 lbs. 
 
 218,943 
 
 4.82c. 
 
 155,931 
 
 1878. 
 
 
 73,831 
 
 5.01c. 
 
 50,673 
 
 Total... 
 
 
 611,604 
 
 5.03c. 
 
 414,197 
 
 XVII. Sampled and classed above 16 N. 
 
 Declared value 
 
 Cost 
 
 Liquidated 
 
 
 A. 20 D. S. 
 
 equals No. 20 D. S. 
 
 per lb. 
 
 duty received. 
 
 1876. 
 
 
 $58,045 
 
 5.73c. 
 
 $40,107 
 
 1877. 
 
 . 92,477 lbs. 
 
 6,181 
 
 6.68c. 
 
 3,756 
 
 1878. 
 
 
 35,491 
 
 6.32c. 
 
 22,793 
 
 Total... 
 
 
 99,717 
 
 5.98c. 
 
 66,656 
 
 XVIII. Sampled and classed above No. 
 
 Declared value 
 
 Cost 
 
 Liquidated 
 
 
 20 D. S. 
 
 above No. 20 D. S. 
 
 per lb. 
 
 duty received. 
 
 1876. 
 
 . 24,976 lbs. 
 
 $2,003 
 
 8.02c. 
 
 $1,248 
 
 1877. 
 
 
 2,590 
 
 7.88c. 
 
 1,642 
 
 1878. 
 
 
 16,866 
 
 7.79c. 
 
 10,815 
 
 Total... 
 
 
 21,459 
 
 7.82c. 
 
 13,705 
 
 Under the above official classification, apparently, the average rate 
 per cent, ad valorem duty actually paid in the fiscal year ending June 
 30, 1878, on each of the classifications for duty of imported sugar 
 consumed in said year, liquidation of duty being complete, is as 
 follows; but the true ad valorem rate can only be estimated, inas¬ 
 much as it depends on honest classification, which has not recently 
 
 * Testimony of importers and refiners, No. 7 sugar costs 3.25 cents, 
 t From estimates of experts, No. 7 sugar costs 3.50 cents per lb. 
 
 | Average estimate of experts, No. 7 D. S. sugar costs 3.375 cents. 
 
 \ Testimony of importers and refiners, No. 10 costs 3.75 cents. 
 
 II From testimony of other experts, No. 10 costs 4.00 cents. 
 
 H Average estimate of experts, No. 10 sugar costs 3.875. 
 
 ** Testimony of importers and refiners, No. 13 costs 4.00 cents, 
 ft From estimates of other experts, No. 13 costs 4.50 cents. 
 
 ♦J Average estimates of experts, No. 13 costs 4.25 cents. 
 
32 
 
 obtained in levying duty on centrifugal and other high grades of 
 imported sugar : 
 
 XIX. 1878. Classifications. 
 
 Quantity con¬ 
 sumed, lbs. 
 
 Declared 
 
 value. 
 
 Duties 
 
 liquidated. 
 
 Per cent, 
 ad val. 
 
 All not above No. 7. 
 
 Above 7 N. A., 10 D. S. 
 
 Above 10 N. A., 13 D. S. 
 
 Above 13 N. A.’ 16 D. S. 
 
 Above 16 N. A., 20 D. S. 
 
 All above 20 D. S. 
 
 Total dutiable in 1878. 
 
 860,287,172 
 
 618,019,876 
 
 72,316,574 
 
 1,474,118 
 
 561,068 
 
 216,294 
 
 $41,516,497 
 
 33,232,883 
 
 4,110,502 
 
 73,831 
 
 35,491 
 
 16,866 
 
 818,818,782 
 
 15,450,497 
 
 2,033,904 
 
 50,673 
 
 22,793 
 
 10,815 
 
 45.33 
 
 46.49 
 
 49.48 
 
 68.03 
 
 64.22 
 
 64.12 
 
 1,552,875,112 
 
 78,986,070 
 
 36,387,464 
 
 46.00 
 
 The evident purpose of the sugar tariff' of 1870 was to levy a 
 specific duty on sugar equivalent to an ad valorem duty of about 50 
 per cent.; and the addition of 25 per cent, ad valorem levied upon 
 said specific duty in 1875 would naturally increase the duty to 62.50 
 per cent, on the actual cost or foreign market value of all sugar, up 
 to No. 16 Dutch standard, that cost not less than 3^ cents and up¬ 
 wards per pound. Sugar costing less than 3J cents per pound in 
 the foreign market would of course pay more than 62.50 per cent, 
 ad valorem. 
 
 Under an honest classification of imported sugars, the average ad 
 valorem duty in 1878 would have shown about 64 per cent.; for 
 instance, about 20 per cent, of all sugar now entered into consump¬ 
 tion is not above No. 7 Dutch standard. In the fiscal year 1878 
 there entered into consumption 1,552,875,112 pounds of dutiable 
 sugar, 20 per cent, of which is 310,575,022 pounds, not above No. 
 7; average cost, say, 3.50 cents per pound; amounts to $10,870,- 
 125.77; duty at 2.1875 cents per pound would be $6,893,828.58, or 
 63.41 per cent., instead of 45.33 per cent., as represented under the 
 false classification for duty in 1878. 
 
 The case stands as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
 1878 : Consumption, 1,552,875,112 pounds of dry sugar, valued in 
 the foreign market at $78,986,070, or 5.086 cents per pound; paid 
 a duty of $36,387,464, or only 2.34 cents per pound on an average 
 grade equal to No. 8* Dutch standard, while the actual foreign cost 
 and value of the sugar consumed, evidenced in the declared value 
 and confirmed in the home market, clearly prove the quality and 
 natural grades have been on the average between No. 13 and 16 
 Dutch standard, individual trade experiences, theories, and tes- 
 timony of interested sugar merchants to the contrary notwithstand- 
 
 The above tabular classifications are from the official records, 
 foreign values as declared included; the testimony in regard to 
 
 W U6S a f J aW 8U r? arS Was « iven before the sub-committee 
 of the Ways and Means Committee in New York, September, 1878, 
 
 ritr e ZTd n r 8 - gat T 8 ’ and Sinee ’ b f“ Of undoubted integ- 
 n d 1I l lm P° rtl "g s «gars from all sugar-producing couil 
 
 are mv'ov.-n fi?i , tlere ‘. The deductions and classifications of facts 
 are my own, and are incontrovertible 
 
 a unifor n m W dmv 0 oU Urp08 ! d the ad ’ vocates of and petitioners for 
 a uniform duty on sugar to No. 13 Dutch standard, in the face of 
 
33 
 
 these exposures of systemized frauds on the revenue, to carry on a 
 still more gigantic system of frauds upon the people; in plain lan¬ 
 guage, they propose to outrage and punish American consumers by 
 depriving the people of the refined product of low grade raw sugars, 
 the importation of which is to be virtually prohibited by a uniform 
 duty on all grades of imported sugars to No. 13 Dutch standard; 
 not only this, but such results would be calamitous to home indus¬ 
 tries, revenue, and commerce, as I have elsewhere proved. 
 
 Shall Congress succomb to the imperious demands of men who 
 boldly declare before this committee, in substance, that they do not 
 want to make the refined sugars required by the mass of consumers 
 because there is less money in it than in high grades, or yield to 
 uniform duty men, who admit discolorations and false classification 
 of imported sugars to evade duty, and claim reward for such nefa¬ 
 rious practices of power to rob the people and deplete the Treasury 
 legally hereafter ? 
 
 Has the time arrived when, for the nonsensical reason alone that 
 it will be easier to collect the duty from sugar under a uniform 
 tariff to No. 10 or 13 or 16 Dutch standard (a reason which at first 
 sight seems plausible, but which analysis proves to be mistaken,) 
 the interests of fifty millions of American consumers, producers, 
 and manufacturers of sugar shall be tossed bodily into the keeping 
 of those whose hands and high-grade sugars are discolored by fraud 
 for greed of gain already ? 
 
 There is no theory about these statements; they are classified 
 facts and reliable evidence. The intent of a uniform duty on sugar 
 to No. 13 Dutch standard, in color—without check or legal means 
 of detecting frauds, or even with them—means evil, and that con¬ 
 tinually, against the people and their industries and food necessities. 
 
 Mr. Searles, apparently in defense of discoloration of high-grade 
 sugars to evade duty, in his closing remarks on Saturday, January 
 31, said in substance, that, having tampered (experimented) with 
 low grade sugars the evening previous, after my practical illustra¬ 
 tions of illicit high grade practices had been given before the com¬ 
 mittee, he found that by heating the sugar over the fire—in other 
 words, by semi-refining the low-grade sugar, and then grinding it— 
 the color was raised somewhat. Mr. Searles overlooked the fact 
 that, in order to raise the color of low-grade sugar even somewhat, 
 he was compelled, before grinding them, to change their natural 
 texture entirely by semi-refining; in other words, by heat and evap¬ 
 oration. 
 
 I distinctly explained and illustrated this to the committee on 
 Thursday, and again on Friday, when grinding low-grade sugars 
 on the one hand, and Demerara and Cuban colored centrifugals on 
 the other, and when unfolding Cuban and Demerara method of dis¬ 
 coloring centrifugals and vacuum-pan sugars to evade duty ; and I 
 repeat, it is impracticable and unprofitable to tamper with sugars 
 of natural make and color below No. 10 Dutch standard, or in the 
 case of muscovadoes and molasses sugars above No. 10, to evade 
 duty, until the intrinsic grade and color of the sugar has first been 
 raised and the crystallizable strength brought above 90 or 91 per 
 5 
 
34 
 
 cent, in 100 parts of raw sugar material. Then discolorations are 
 practised to evade duty, as explained and practically illustrated in 
 actual view of the honorable Committee on Ways and Means by 
 me, wherein it was proved that the discolored centrifugals from 
 Cuba and Demerara required no heat or change of inherent prop¬ 
 erties to develop No. 16 or No. 20 Dutch standard, actual in color, 
 in a No. 7 Dutch standard, or No. 10 Dutch standard, apparent in 
 color, made low in color by discolorants, while high in crystals to 
 evade duty. 
 
 Neither should it be forgotten that Demerara official records 
 prove that her sugar producers and manufacturers have testified 
 against themselves, declaring boldly, under oath, their use of dis¬ 
 colorants when making sugars for the Americam market of high 
 crystallizable strength, but in color below 7 or 10, as the case may 
 require. Premiums have even been offered in Demerara for the 
 best samples of discolored sugars of highest test, for the American 
 trade. 
 
 Surely it cannot be that Congress will reward these self-convicted 
 manipulators and their American allies, by enabling them to de¬ 
 prive American consumers of the cheap and pure refined sugars 
 they now obtain from low-grade raw-sugar material that would be 
 prohibited under a uniform duty of No. 13 Dutch standard; which 
 treachery against the nation is urged upon this committee and upon 
 Congress, under the pretense that the Secretary can collect the 
 revenue a trifle easier, and all such balderdash. 
 
 Mr. Brown also submitted the following paper in response to 
 questions put to him by various members of the committee. 
 
 As to the effect of Hawaiian sugars on prices in San Francisco 9 
 
 Answer. The effect has been merely to maintain prices on the 
 Pacific coast at the highest point; in other words, not the slightest 
 benefit to consumers has resulted from the importation of Hawaiian 
 sugars into California duty free; on the contrary, the country loses 
 the duty on said sugars and an equal amount in industry or labor 
 expended in Hawaii in raising the grades or semi-refining her sugars 
 for us, while Hawaiian free sugars cost or are sold for the same 
 when landed in California as similar grades of dutiable sugars, plus 
 duty, cost or are sold for when landed in Boston or New York. 
 
 As to the American production of sugar for the last forty years ? 
 In reply I present herewith the following tabular compilation, which 
 exhibits the cane-sugar product in the United States during the last 
 forty-three years and the market value thereof, compiled from the 
 highest official authorities by myself: 
 
35 
 
 Crop years. 
 
 Total crops. 
 
 Total value. 
 
 Crop years. 
 
 Total crops. 
 
 Total value. 
 
 1835-’36_ 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 30,000,000 
 
 70,000,000 
 
 $2,700,000 
 
 4,200,000 
 
 1857-’58_ 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 307,700,000 
 
 $17,900,000 
 
 25,000,000 
 
 1836—’87 -- 
 
 1858-’59_ 
 
 414,800,000 
 
 1837-’38- 
 
 65,000,000 
 
 5,063,000 
 
 1859-’60_ 
 
 225,100,000 
 
 18,200,000 
 
 1838-’39_ 
 
 70,000,000 
 
 115,000,000 
 
 87,000,000 
 
 4,375,000 
 
 5,750,000 
 
 4,785,000 
 
 1860-61_ 
 
 263,200,000 
 
 14,469,000 
 
 1840—’41 ZZZZZZ 
 
 1861—’62_ _• 
 
 1862-’63_ 
 
 528^300^000 
 
 96,000,000 
 
 25,100,100 
 
 7,750,000 
 
 1841- 42_ 
 
 1842- 43_ 
 
 90,000,000 
 
 140,000,000 
 
 3,600,000 
 
 4,750,000 
 
 1863- ’64_ 
 
 1864- '65_ 
 
 84,500,000 
 
 10,800,000 
 
 13,800,000 
 
 2 ,000,000 
 
 1843-44_ 
 
 100 ,000,000 
 
 6 ,000,000 
 
 1865-’66_ 
 
 19,900,000 
 
 2,847,000 
 
 1844-45_ 
 
 200 ,000,000 
 
 9,000,000 
 
 1866-’67_ 
 
 42,900,000 
 
 5,360,000 
 
 1845-46_ 
 
 186,600,000 
 
 10,266,000 
 
 1867-’68.___ 
 
 41,400,000 
 
 5,800,000 
 
 1846-47_ 
 
 140,000,000 
 
 9,800,000 
 
 1868-’69_ 
 
 95,100,000 
 
 11,610,000 
 
 1847-48_ . 
 
 240,000,000 
 
 220 ,000,000 
 
 9,600,000 
 
 8,800,000 
 
 1869-70_ 
 
 99,500,000 
 
 168,900,000 
 
 10,442,000 
 
 1848-49_ 
 
 1870-71_ 
 
 14,261,000 
 
 1849- ’50- 
 
 1850— ’51 
 
 269,800,000 
 
 231,200,000 
 
 13,396,000 
 
 12,678,000 
 
 11,827,000 
 
 15,453,000 
 
 1871- 72_ 
 
 1872- >73 
 
 146.900,000 
 
 125,300,000 
 
 103,200,000 
 
 134,500,000 
 
 165,450,000 
 
 194,960,000 
 
 149,469,200 
 
 245,319,150 
 
 13,911,000 
 
 10,900,000 
 
 1851-J59. 
 
 257,100,000 
 
 368,100,000 
 
 495,200,000 
 
 1873—>74 
 
 8,555,000 
 
 11,265,000 
 
 1859-’53 
 
 1874-’ 75 
 
 1853—’54_ 
 
 15,726,000 
 
 18,025,000 
 
 16,200,000 
 
 8,137,000 
 
 1875-76 
 
 11,578,000 
 
 1854—>55 
 
 385,700,000 
 
 254,600,000 
 
 81,400,000 
 
 1876—>77 
 
 15,646,000 
 
 11,957,536 
 
 1855-’5fi 
 
 1877—>78 
 
 1856—’57_ 
 
 1878-79_ 
 
 18,398,936 
 
 Note.— Although the above table, from 1850 to 1878, of pro¬ 
 duction in pounds, varies somewhat from the table of Messrs. 
 Champonier and Boucherou, in the “ Statistical Abstract of the 
 United States,” it is considered on the whole the most reliable data 
 extant on the subject; and it is believed that the differences apparent 
 between the various authorities consist of different estimates of the 
 number of pounds per hogshead ; Messrs. Champonier and Bouche¬ 
 rou estimate an average of 1,150 pounds per hogshead ; other 
 authorities estimate 1,200 pounds per hogshead ; while the fact is, 
 that hogsheads vary in weight from about 1,160 to 1,200 pounds; 
 some even estimate 1,300 pounds to the hogshead ; hence the above 
 is approximately accurate; the value is computed by using the 
 average prices current in each year.—H. A. Brown. 
 
 As to the importations of sugar each year, its annual value, and 
 the annual revenue therefrom ? 
 
 In reply I present a tabular exhibit of imported sugars entered 
 into consumption each year, for the fiscal years 1867 to 1879, inclu¬ 
 sive, the annual value thereof, the duty received therefrom, and the 
 rate per pound, in each fiscal year. 
 
36 
 
 Foreign sugar entered into consumption. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Dutiable sugars. 
 
 Valued. 
 
 Duty paid. 
 
 Rate lb. 
 
 1867.,. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 936,786,240 
 
 838,300,320 
 
 828,500,220 
 
 30,359,400 
 
 30,645,235 
 
 Cents. 
 
 3.04 
 
 1868. 
 
 997,298,331 
 
 43,307,769 
 
 3.04 
 
 1869. 
 
 1,007,625,757 
 
 47,826,296 
 
 3.04 
 
 1870. 
 
 1,183,089,146 
 
 59,021,588 
 
 35,986,347 
 
 3.04 
 
 1871. 
 
 1,166,394,287 
 
 58,382,938 
 
 29,690,552 
 
 2.54 
 
 1872.. 
 
 1,346,942,550 
 
 1,378,498,832 
 
 73,318,299 
 
 27,876,769 
 
 28,226,309 
 
 2.07 
 
 1873.. 
 
 74,993,073 
 
 2.05 
 
 1874. 
 
 1,511,456,915 
 
 1,575,893,948 
 
 76,080,510 
 
 30,492,526 
 
 2.02 
 
 1875. 
 
 69,292,009 
 
 33,380,643 
 
 2.12 
 
 1876. 
 
 1,561,880,545 
 
 63,860,713 
 
 37,625,064 
 
 2.41 
 
 1877.. 
 
 1.455,387,854 
 
 71,849,089 
 
 34,337,350 
 
 2.36 
 
 1878. 
 
 1,552,875,112 
 
 1,598,461,986 
 
 78,986,070 
 
 36,387,464 
 
 2 34 
 
 1879. 
 
 65,918,931 
 
 37,294,197 
 
 2.33 
 
 
 HAWAII. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Free Sugars. 
 
 Valued. 
 
 Duty paid. 
 
 Rate lb. 
 
 1877 . 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 30,685,142 
 
 30,368,328 
 
 41,693,069 
 
 82,112,270 
 
 2,274,430 
 
 2,811,192 
 
 Free. 
 
 
 1878 . 
 
 Free. 
 
 
 1879 . 
 
 Free. 
 
 
 
 
 
 As to the qualities of sugars now imported from the Hawaiian 
 Islands ? In reply, I present the following tabular exhibit of the 
 different grades or qualities of sugars imported from the Hawaiian 
 Islands, also the quantities and value thereof, for the fiscal years end¬ 
 ing June 30, 1877, 1878, and 1879, under the reciprocity treaty 
 admitting Hawaiian sugars duty free : 
 
 Quality. 
 
 Quantity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Sugars not above No. 7 Dutch standard 
 
 1877. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 None. 
 8230,155 
 714,490 
 737,525 
 426,302 
 3 798 
 
 Above 7, not above No. 10. 
 
 
 
 Above 10, not above No. 13. 
 
 
 11291315 
 
 Above 13, not above No. 16. 
 
 
 T lOlftlftftfi 
 
 Above 16, not above No. 20. 
 
 
 . R1KK4f)fi 
 
 Above No. 20 Dutch standard, in all. 
 
 
 
 
 1878. 
 
 
 
 Sugars not above No. 7 Dutch standard 
 
 
 Non© 
 
 None. 
 161,922 
 757,734 
 963 549 
 
 Above 7, not above No. 10. 
 
 
 
 Above 10, not above No. 13. 
 
 
 10 805 283 
 
 Above 13, not above No. 16. 
 
 
 19 997’ 7«o 
 
 Above 16, not above No. 20. 
 
 
 4 897 345 
 
 391 224 
 
 
 1879. 
 
 
 
 Sugars not above No. 7 Dutch standard 
 
 
 None 
 
 None. 
 
 Above 7, not above No. 10. 
 
 
 
 Above 10, not above No. 13 . 
 
 
 1C ftlK COC 
 
 1,099^164 
 
 1,118,117 
 
 92,061 
 
 Above 13, not above No. 16. 
 
 
 15 670 664 
 
 Above 16, not above No. 20. 
 
 
 
 As to the different grades of sugar imported from Hawaiian 
 Islands before the treaty ? 
 
 In reply I present the following tabular exhibit, wiiich substan¬ 
 tially indicates the quality and quantity of Hawaiian sugars prior 
 i 0 l actua l grades of sugar imported from Hawaii 
 m l»74, 1875, 1876 are not officially stated except on invoice 
 iitries, but are readily approximated by comparing market values 
 
 with quantities imported in those years. 
 
37 
 
 Sugars imported from Hawaii, fiscal years 1868, and 1874, 1875, 1876. 
 
 Quality. Quantity. Value. 
 
 Sugars not above No. 12 Dutch standard. 12,622,159 $579,756 
 
 Above 12, not above No. 15 . 5,591,842 375,247 
 
 Above 15, not above No. 20.... 27,061 1,895 
 
 Above No. 20, in all.-... 80 . 11 
 
 Average grade, 7 to 10 . 18,241,142 956,909 
 
 1874— Nos. 7 to 10 D. S., average. 13,575,674 740,786 
 
 1875— Nos. 7 to 10 D. S., average. 17,888,000 938,676 
 
 1876— Nos. 7 to 10 D. S., average. 20,978,374 1,051,987 
 
 As to American capitalists engaged in the sugar business in the 
 Hawaiian Islands ? 
 
 Answer. There are well-known American capitalists and exten¬ 
 sive refiners of sugar in California who, in co-operation with 
 Hawaiian producers of sugar, control the sugar trade of Hawaii, 
 and through this control of free sugars also regulate prices of re¬ 
 fined* sugar to consumers on the Pacific coast; keeping them as 
 high as possible without admitting refined sugars from the Atlantic 
 States in quantities sufficient for successful competition against 
 sugars refined in California. 
 
 Henry A. Brown, 
 
 Ex Special Treasury Agent , United States. 
 
 Residence : Saxonville, Massachusetts.