HAWAIIAN SUGAR BOUNTIES TREATY ABUSES WHICH Defraud the U. S. Revenue, Oppress American Con¬ sumers and Tax-payers, Discriminate against other Sugar-Producing Countries, and Endanger American Sugar Industries. STATEMENTS MADE TO CONGRESS HENRY A. BROWN, Ex-Special Treasury Agent, U. S., Saxonville, Mass. January, 1883. Entered aocording to act of Congress, in the year 1882, in the office of the Librarian of Congress. WASHINGTON: PRINTED BY JUDD & DETWEILER. 1883. IV'O-'A im* B§1 STATEMENTS MADE TO CONGRESS In relation to Importations of Hawaiian Sugars Duty Free, falsely claimed to be “ Muscovado , Brown, and Unrefined Sugars, commonly known as Sandwich Island Sugars ,” prior to the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875-’6. By Henry A. Brown, Ex-Special United States Treasury Agent. The language of the treaty with Hawaii in regard to the kinds of sugar exempted from duty thereby, is plain. The treaty of 1875, carried into effect September 9th, 1876, with Hawaii, exempts only “ muscovado, brown, and all other unrefined sugar, meaning thereby the grades of sugar heretofore commonly imported from the Hawaiian Islands, and now (1875) known in the markets of San Francisco and Portland as Sandwich Island sugars.” (See Supt. R. S.,Vol. I, pp. 629.) Whether or no vacuum pansand centrifugal machines may have been known and used in advancing sugars in Hawaii for two or three years prior to the treaty, is not of the slightest importance, being no proof that such sugars are exempted from duty by the treaty of 1875. The manufactured sugars, now constituting more than 80 per cent of the entries from Hawaii, were never commonly imported and known in the markets of San Francisco and Portland as “ mus¬ covado, brown, and other unrefined Sandwich Island sugars ” prior to the treaty of 1875. Official dereliction of duty in not levying duty on semi-refined sugars imported from Hawaii, cannot be whitewashed with the pretence that a few centrifugal machines had been set up on Ha¬ waiian plantations two or three years prior to the treaty of 1875. What are known to-day as vacuum-pan centrifugal sugars in our markets were virtually unknown to the planters in Hawaii prior to the treaty, when, according to Mr. Allen, the Hawaiian Minister, “ most of the Hawaiian planters became bankrupt, causing general bankruptcy and ruin to almost every one who had become inter¬ ested in the production of sugar.” (See pp. 39 minutes hearing before Com. For. Affairs, Feb.'17th, 1882.) Custom and habit too often usurp the place of law in the custom¬ house routine of dealing with imported merchandise, both free and dutiable. This is clearly evidenced in the fact that, while the treaty of 1875 exempted only “ muscovado, brown, and all other 4 unrefined sugar;” customs officials have, almost without exception admitted every grade of sugar that claimed free entry since the treaty, until refined vacuum-pan crystals have virtually superseded the formerly commonly known and imported sugars exempted by the treaty with Hawaii, as I shall presently show in official classifi¬ cations. There is no authentic evidence that the Treasury Department or the Collector of Customs at San Francisco had any knowledge at the time of said treaty that vacuum-pan sugars were made in Hawaii and sent to this country as “ muscovado, brown, and other unre¬ fined sugars, such as were commonly known in the markets of San Francisco and Portland as Sandwich Island sugars,” prior to the treaty of 1875 ; neither does the treaty exempt any sugars, except the sugars thus definitely named therein. Vacuum-pan sugars were not considered or covered by the treaty of 1875. It matters not that a moiety of light-colored, drained sugars were made in the Islands prior to the treaty. Such sugars bore no semblance, except in being called sugar, to the vacuum-pan sugars now manufactured in Hawaii, and commonly imported under the treaty, but which have no claim thereby to be admitted free of duty. The following letter, addressed to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, shows conclusively that the Treasury Department has no official knowle< ge that any but raw muscovado sugars were im¬ ported from Hawaii before the treaty of 1875; neither is it possible, at this late date, for official opinions and reports to prove that vacuum-pan crystals claimed to have been made in Hawaii before the treaty were “ muscovado, brown, and other unrefined sugars,” or that the vacuum-pan sugars now imported were the grades “ com¬ monly imported ” from Hawaii, and known in the markets of San Francisco and Portland as Sandwich Island sugars prior to the treaty of 1875 : To the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. Hon. C. G. Williams, Chairman. Dear Sir : I have the honor to ask your attention to the follow¬ ing statements relating to the Hawaiian Reciprocity Treaty , and methods employed to continue the same, against public interests. Having failed to impress the people in the slightest degree with the belief that it is their interest to be robbed by the Hawaiian Treaty, the San Francisco Merchant, the leading organ of the Spreckels dynasty, has not only resorted to fiction, but presented serious matter for the investigation of Congress. The “ Mer¬ chant” of April 14th ult., claims in substance, as you doubtless are aware, that 88 per cent, of the sugars imported from the Hawaiian Islands in 1875, were vacuum-pan'crystals from above No. 13 D S. 5 to No. 20 D. S. in color, and that those sugars were exempt as “ muscovado, brown, and other unrefined sugars commonly known in the markets of San Francisco and Portland as Sandwich Island sugars.” Passing over the random fictitious pretense that vacuum pans were generally used by the impoverished planters of Hawaii prior to the treaty of 1875, and making due allowance for the fact that the Spreckels dynasty is playing for high stakes, amounting to from five to six millions of dollars profit per annum, wrung from con¬ sumers of sugars, we reach the following table copied from the “ Merchant,” which claims to represent the official classification of Hawaiian sugars in 1875, while prudently forgetting to give the official values for each grade, and omitting the signature of the official tabulator. The “ Merchant's ” “ Table, showing importations of Hawaiian sugars at the port of San Francisco for the calendar year 1875, (the year prior to the Reciprocity Treaty), according to grades, from custom-house returns,” is as follows : Grade. 1875. Ratio. Not above No. 7_ 147,809 lbs. 1 per cent. No. 7 to No. 10_ 320,680 “ 2 “ “ No. 10 to No. 13_ 1,730,668 “ 9 “ “ No. 13 to No. 16_ 15,543,062 “ 82 « “ No. 16 to No. 20_ 1,158,748 “ 6 “ “ Not only is the above table an absurdity on its face, but never in any year in the history of sugar imports from the Sandwich Islands, has there been anything like an approximation to the above fictitious percentage of grades entered as “ Sandwich Island sugars,” etc., above No. 13 to No. 20 D. S. in color; neither do any such official classifications of Hawaiian sugars in 1875 exist in the published official records of the Treasury Department, which statement is proved in the following Exhibit from the Bureau of Statistics : Statement showing the Quantities ..a Valt.ee of B = » 8m« I”»s"vT fr<>m ‘ h6 Ha ”" a ° IS,andSi ” t0 the United States, from 1868 to 1876, inclusive. SUGAR, DUTCH STANDARD IN COLOR. YEAR ENDED JUNE 30— 1807 ... 1808... 1809 ... 1870... 1871 ... Pounds. 12)c22)l59 Dollars. Pounds. 341,020 22,059 375,247 27,001 ■ No official repovt of classification .. Pounds. 15.197,001 18,241,062 16,314,482 14,010,181 15,018.469 15,357,784 15,743,140 13,575.074 17.888,000 20,978,374 Dollars. 786,092 956,898 1,087,433 901 645 935,909 923,441 934,824 740,786 Statement showing the QtiANTiT.EE end Valves of Bmitn Suoae‘‘J* i f”'“ iian I,h " ds and Entered for Consumption in the United States, from 18/ / to 1882, inclusive, e of duty under reciprocity treaty, act of Congress approved August 15, 1876, which went into effect September 9,1876.] [Free 01 SUGAR, DUTCH STANDARD IN COLOR. YEAR ENDED JUNE 30— iAbout No. 7 and not! ’ above No. 10. } Above No. 10 and not above No. 13. Above No. 13 and not above No. 16. 1877 ... 1878 . 1879 . 1880 . 1881. 1882. ! Pounds. 3,980,804 2,487.020 I 8,174,146 7,793,349 5,373,005 3,952,800 Dollars. 230,155 101,922 601,850 450,030 286,707 182,873 Pounds. 11,291,315 10.805,283 10,015,080 28,410,696 28,486,589 63,228,379 Dollars. 754.490 767.734 1,099,164 1,892,737 1,774,952 3,416,318 Pounds. 10,183,556 12,227,780 16,670,664 23,868,886 13,049,013 44,973,293 Dollars. 737,626 963,650 1,118,118 1,689,061 2,866,362 3,026,297 Above No. 16 and not above No. 20. Pounds. Dollars. 5,186,406 426,303 4,897,345 391,224 1,232,673 1,477,493 103,659 ” 4 , 627,380 .292/>95 Pounds. 30,642,081 30,308,328 41,093,009 61,556,324 70,909,207 106,181,858 Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, TUrtvrh ft JOSEPH NIMMO, Dollars. 2,198,473 2,274,430 2,811,193 4,135,487 4,927,021 6,918,083 Jr., Bureau. 7 It appears that this Government has no official knowledge that vacuum-pan crystals were ever made in the Sandwich Islands prior to the treaty, and in fact has no authentic knowledge that any sugars except muscovado, brown, and other drained sugars were made in the Hawaiian Islands prior to the treaty, and commonly known as “ Sandwich Island sugars,” which statement is proved in the following letter: Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Washington, D. C., March 22, 1882. “ H. A. Brown, Esq., “ Dear Sir : In reply to your inquiry of the 20th instant, as to whether Hawaiian sugars imported prior to 1876 were other than raw, drained or clayed sugars, to wit, brown, and muscovado sugars, made by the old process, and known as Sandwich Island sugars, I have to inform you that this office is not in possession of any infor¬ mation upon that point. “ Very respectfully, (Signed) “Joseph Nimmo, Jr., “ Chief of Bureau Conclusive evidence of chicane in the Spreckels, “ Organ” table of assumed grades imported in 1875, appears in the official classifi¬ cations of Sandwich Island sugars in 1867-68, which averaged above 65 per cent., not above No. 12 D. S., and in 1877 which averaged about 50 per cent., not above No. 13, D. S., as against only 3 per cent, claimed below No. 10 D. S. for 1875, in the “ Organ” table of fictitious classifications for that year. The “ Merchant’s” attempt to subvert facts simply renders Trea¬ sury officials derelict of duty, in appearance at least, inasmuch as if the marvellous “organ” classifications of 1875 existed, the fact was suppressed officially, and Congress was led to believe that only muscovado and brown sugars were made in or imported from the Islands, while 88 per cent, of the imports of 1875 were actually semi-refined vacuum-pan centrifugal crystals, above 13 to 20 D. S., leaving only 3 per cent, of actual muscovado and brown sugars not above 10 D. S., and only 9 per cent, between 10 and 13 D. S. Without here entering further into these analyses, which I have already done in numerous statements to Congress and your honor¬ able committee, I will only add that China, Java, and Manilla sugars may be imported into the Sandwich Islands, pay 2| cents per lb. duty, and be reboiled and shipped to San Francisco duty free at a clean profit of from $1.34 to $2.70 per 100 lbs.; in fact, the conclu¬ sion is inevitable that “ this profound foreign policy,” or Hawaiian reciprocity treaty, is a gigantic fraud upon the people of this coun¬ try and the native planters of Hawaii, and an incubus upon Ameri¬ can sugar-producing and refining industries. The importation of refined vacuum-pan centrifugal crystals , which ap¬ proximate in quantity 75 per cent, of the Hawaiian sugars now imported duty free , and their unrestricted free entry as “ muscovado , brown , and unrefined sugarsis a stupendous fraud., which demands the immediate action of the Executive and the early attention of Congress. Very respectfully, May 3, 1882. Henry A. Brown. Neither is there anything in the Claus Spreckles protest of 1875 against the Treaty, which can be construed to indicate that vacuum pan sugars were made in Hawaii prior to the Treaty, much less that vacuum pan sugars were “ muscovado, brown and other unrefined sugars heretofore commonly imported, etc.the fact that prior to the Treaty, the Island Planters may have produced and sent to our markets, a moiety of centrifugal sugars rangingfrom 13 to 20 Dutch Standard in color, does not prove that the sugars commonly im¬ ported were of that grade. Manufacturing “ muscovado, brown or other unrefined ” su^ar from cane juice commonly consists of three processes conducted substantially as follows: the juice is first heated slowly to the point of boiling to clarity it, that is, to precipitate feculents for removal trom the raw juice. When the heat does not fully separate fecu¬ lents from the juice, and when acid is in excess therein, alkalies are used, such as quicklime, milk of lime, and bisulphate of lime, lhe quantity of lime required is determined by the use of litmus paper, and feculents are removed by skimming, filtration and set¬ tling. The clarified juice is boiled at about 215° F. to evaporate the juice and reduce it to syrup. The syrup is next concentrated to melada by more rapid boiling at an increased temperature, which should not exceed 235° to 238° Fahrenheit, at which point the best results are usually obtained. During the process of evaporation and concentration, acidity in excess is again corrected by the use of lime, and feculents that rise are removed by skimming. Open boilers or kettles, or tanks are used for sugar making by this process, and were formerly used for refining sugars. After cooling and graining, raw sugar is separated from the syrup or molasses by various methods; draining by putting melada into casks, tanks, or boxes pierced with holes to permit the syrup to escape while the sugar remains, is still practiced in sugar produc¬ ing countries; conical moulds are also used for the same purpose; other and more primitive methods of draining are practiced in pro- and'Tlp“ eS tbC k " 0wled S eof « cude . Molasses obtained by draining raw sugar, is reboiled, evaporated, V 11 ' 1 - the same as the first product of cane juice already described; the raw sugar thus obtained is 9 called molasses sugar, and is 3qual in value to muscovado sugar for refining puruoses; the molasses of commerce is drained trom me lad a and is often extremely rich in sugar crystals, buch sugars as these are the “muscovado, brown, and other unrefined sugars exempted by the treaty of 1875 with Hawaii. Vacuum-pan sugar manufacture is simply the application of the refining process to sugar making, to any desired extent consistent with profitable production and returns for investments made in t e necessary machinery. . ., , » 'the introduction of vacuum-pan boilers varies the old method ot finishing sugar at the second orevaporating process as follows : 1 he syrup, having been brought to the proper consistency, is run into receivers, thence run through filter bags or directly into subsiders, and from thence drawn into the vacuum-pan as required. Sulphur¬ ous and sulphuric acid, quicklime, milk of lime, and sulphurous gas are used in the manufacture of foreign vacuum-pan crystals for the American market in order to evade duty by outwardly discoloring crystals of sugar. , . . , • . Various methods are extensively practiced in foreign countries to color vacuum pan crystals made to test from 93 to 99 in puri y, but intended to evade Nos. 10 and 13 of the Dutch standard of our tariff; a favorite formula employed is, to every 600 gallons of juice add 4 to 5 pounds of lime in the defecator, and again use the same quantity of lime in subsiders for dark sugars, whereas only one halt the quantity of lime is used for light sugars; the excess of the lime retained in the syrup, discolors the crystals more or less outwardly and sometimes throughout, during iuspissation and graining. Again, thoroughly clarified cane juice is evaporated in triple effects or in open pans, run into subsiders, and thence drawn into the vacuum pan for finishing; where the highest grade oVcrystals, say 95 to 99° in purity are required, and No. 10 or 13 U. b. tne limit of color, crystals are fully formed and, just before the strike, the proper percentage of molasses impurities or caramel, or botn, is admitted to the boiling sugar, and the pure crystals are outwardly colored to imitate raw sugars not above No. 7-10 or 13 D. b. in color as desired. f Molasses carefully run into the vacuum-pan at intervals, attcr grainino-has progressed nearly to the desired striking point, pro¬ duces a" 1 molasses crystal of great purity from 93 to 97°, but not above No. 10 D. S. in color, when skillfully manipulated, breat attention, excellent judgment, and superior skill, are the most es¬ sential elements in producing manufactured sugar crystals ot the highest degree of purity, and of the requisite color to evade the payment of the full duty that would be properly levied in this coun¬ try upon such sugars, if they were not manufactured to imitate raw material. . , Unless tampered with at some stage of sugar making, properly 10 clarified cane juice will yield light yellow crystals of any desired size in the vacuum-pan, which equal 12 to 16 D. S. in color; after being purged in the centrifugals, these crystals will be of a natural color, equal to from 13 to 18 D. 8., and test from 95 to 99° in purity; the duty on such sugars, when not above 16 D. S., would at present rates be $3.43£ per 100 lbs., and when above No. 16 D. S. in color, the duty would be $4.06| per 100 lbs., hence the various foreign methods of producing a manufactured article of sugar of superior value, to imitate raw sugar material and evade duty. . j Centrifugal machines perform the work of separating sugar from syrup with dispatch ; by such aid the tedious process of drainage is avoided, and separation accomplished in a few moments, the con¬ centrated mass of sugar and syrup is placed in cylindrical baskets finely perforated, and fitted upon central shafts that are made to re¬ volve swiftly, the rapid motion drives out the syrup, and leaves the sugar comparatively dry and pure in the baskets. The vacuum-pan, or semi-refined sugars,' now imported from Hawaii, are wholly dissimilar in color to, and far superior and larger in grain than muscovado and clayed sugars, or any other raw su¬ gars; these manufactured crystals were virtually unknown and wholly unrecognized in the treaty of 1875, much less were they ex¬ empted thereby; indeed it is evident that even clayed sugars are dutiable under said treaty. On what grounds customs officials at San Francisco levied duty on certain lots of 16 to 20 D. S., Hawaiian sugars, while they have admitted tens of thousands of tons of refined vacuum pan crystals from No. 10 to 13 to 20 D. S. in color free of duty, is a question of importance. I present an exhibit of these abuses in official classifi¬ cations of Hawaiian sugars. The classifications, quantity, and value of dutiable sugars en¬ tered for consumption from the Hawaiian Islands, for the fiscal years ended June 30, 1867, 1868, 1874, 1875, 1876, were as follows : Grades Dutch Standard. Year 1867. Quantity. Pounds Value. Not above No. 12 D. S. _ Above 12, not above 15__ Above 15, not above 20__ 9,353,230 5,821,172 22,659 $443,464 341,020 1,608 Total consumed_ Average cost per 100 pounds, 1867, $5.17. 15,197,061 $786,092 Quality —1868. Sugars not above No. 12 Dutch standard_ Above 12, not above No. 15 Above 15, not above No. 20 . Above No. 20, in all. Quantity Pounds. 12,622,159 5,591,842 Value. $570,7”>6 375,247 1,895 11 Total consumed. _ 18,241,142 $956,909 Average cost per 100 pounds, 1868, $5 24. 11 Dutiable Hawaiian Sugars entered into consumption in the fiscal years ended June 30, 1874, 1875, 1876, prior to the Reciprocity Treaty admitting Hawaiian Sugars Duty Free. Year. Dutiable Sugars. Value. Cost 'per lb. Average Grade. Pounds. Dollars. Cents. 1874.. . 13,575,674 740,786 5 45 No. 7 to 10 D. S. 1875.. . 17,888,000 938,676 5.24 No. 7 to 10 D. S. 1876_ 20,978,374 1,051,987 5.01 No. 7 to 10 D. S. Total_ 52,442,048 2,731,449 Av. 5.2 Av. 7 to 10 D. S. Although the classifications of Hawaiian sugars for duty have not been officially recorded separately in the years 1869 to 1876, in¬ clusive, the average grade thereof by the Dutch standard is readily determined to have been No. 7 to 10 D. S., by the average cost of said sugars, and by comparison with the official classifications and cost of Hawaiian sugars in 1867, 1868, and 1877; proof positive that they were raw “ muscovado, brown, and other unrefined sugars.” Classifications of Hawaiian Sugars entered into consumption in the fiscal years ended June 30, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, under the Dutch Standard. Above No. 13 not above No. 16__ Above No. 16 not above No. 20__ Total consumed — Classified D. S. 1877. Pounds. 1878. Pounds. 1879. Pounds. Above No. 7 not above No. 10— Above No. 10 notabove No. 13— Above No. 13 notabove No. 16_ Above No. 16 notabove No. 20— Above No. 20 D. S__ _ 3,980,804 11,291*815 10,183,556 5,186,406 43,061 2,437,920 10.805,283 12,227,780 4,897,345 8 174,146 16,615.686 15,670,564 1,232,673 Total consumed.. . _ 30,685,142 30,368,328 41,693,069 Classified D. S. Not above No. 7 D. S _ _ 1880. Pounds. 1881. Pounds. 1882. Pounds. 13,571 3,939,235 53,228,379 Above No. 7 notabove No. 10 — Above No. 10 not above No. 13— 7,793,349 28,416,596 5,373,005 28,486,589 Hawaiian Sugars entered into consumption free of duty in the fi=cal years ended June 30, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, under the Reciprocity Treaty admit¬ ting Hawaiian Sugars Duty Free. Year. Free Sugars. Pounds. Value. Dollars. Cost per lb. Cents. Average Grade. 1877- 30,685,142 2,112,270 6.88 Above No. 13 D. S.. 1878- 30,368,328 2.274.430 7.49 Above No. 14 D. S. 1879 _ 41,693,069 2,811,192 6.74 Above No. 13 D. S. 1880_ 61,556,324 4,135,486 6.72 Above No. 13 D. S. 1881_ 76,909,207 4,927,021 6.40 Above No. 14 D. S. 1882... _ 106,181,858 6,918,083 ’ 6.51 Above No. 14 D. S. Total. — 347,393,928 23,178,482 6.79 About No. 14 D. S. Loss of duty ii n six years, by grades average above 13 D. S. 3.43J cts. j)er lb. “ At 62J per cent, ad valorem.. __4.17 cts. per lb. 12 The above exhibit also proves that the abolition of duty on Ha¬ waiian sugars did not reduce their cost, which averaged 5.2 cts. per lb. in 1874-5-6, and 6.79 cts. per lb. in 1877 to 1882, inclusive, but has increased the cost of refined sugars to Pacific coast consumers. The treaty admits nothing but natural drained sugars; indeed, - the moiety of sugars above 7 to 10 D. S. in color, which were en¬ tered and known in 1875 as Sandwich Island sugars, were musco¬ vado sugars, a portion of which ma} 7 possibly have been clayed, which process produces a moiety of white sugar. The quantity of sugars drained above No. 13 or 15 D. S. prior to the treaty docs not, however, indicate that such were clayed sugars; neither is there any reliable evidence that a pound of the sugars, then imported from the Sandwich Islands, were clayed; in fact, melada can be drained until the remaining dry muscovado sugar is above No. 16 D. S. in color, and the conclusion is inevita¬ ble that Sandwich Island sugars, as designated in the treaty, were muscovado sugars. Casual observation of the changed classifications of Hawaiian sugars since the treaty, the knowledge that in those islands sugars are now grained and finished in vacuum pans, after the cane juice has been clarified and inspissated to the consistency of syrup, and that, instead of the old method of twenty to forty days’ draining, the vacuum-pan sugars are now drained in centrifugals in a few minutes, together with the statements of Ex-Minister Comly and others, that the best of modern machineryis now used, and the highest grades of sugars are now made in the Hawaiian Islands, as well as the sworn cost or invoice value of such sugars, and sales in open market, produces reliable evidence that the great mass of all sugars now entered as free sugars are; in reality, vacuum-pan and high grade sugars, superior in color, quality, and value to the “ musco¬ vado, brown,and other unrefiued” Sandwich Island sugars exempted by the treaty. To what extent this subversion of the treaty has been carried is readily seen in the classifications, which rose, as follows, after the treaty on the single class above No. 13, not above 16 D. S., as en¬ tered for consumption in the fiscal years ended June 30, 1877, to 1882, inclusive : 1877, above 13 not above 16 D. S. 1878, 1879, “ « 10,183,656 lbs. 12,227,780 11 15,670,564 “ , DO , , 0r more than the total im P orls of Hawaiian sugars in 1876, 1881, above 13 not above 16 D S.___ __ 43 more tlian l h e imports of Hawaiian sugars in 1879. 1882, above 13 not above 16 D. S._____ *“ ^ 973 293 000,000 Every pound of these sugars, and all of the 10 to 13 grades, are undoubtedly dutiable sugars under the law and under the treaty, 13 and every pound of Hawaii sugar of every grade should pay duty by the Polariscope test iu order to stop this wholesale revenue robbery. Tangible evidence is furnished in classification Tables herein, that sugars are manufactured by refining processes in Hawaii, as well as in Cuba and Demerara, to assume any outward color desired; an impossible achievement in making muscovado sugars. When duty was levied on certain high grades of sugars entered as free at San Francisco, Hawaiian sugars above No. 16 D. S. in color soon disappeared for the time being, but have reappeared under lax Executive administration; the official record of classifi¬ cations of Hawaiian sugars above 16 D. S. were as follows, in the fiscal years ended June 30th, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882 : Admitted duty free. 1 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 \ lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. Above 16 not above 20 D. S. .. J 4,897,345 1,232,673 1,477,493 None. 4,027,380 This treaty abuse becomes palpably evident in my manifold com¬ parisons of samples of Hawaiian sugars imported in 1881-1882, with samples of other foreign and domestic sugars including— Dutiable raw sugars in their normal condition. Domestic cane, beet and sorghum sugars. Foreign centrifugals, showing coloration devices, and official Dutch standards used for levying duty on sugar. The Treasury Department stands committed against the admis¬ sion of high grades of Hawaiian sugars, duty free, in sustaining the collector at San Francisco who levied duty on such sugars" that happened to be No. 18 to 20 D. S. in color, as will be seen in Treas¬ ury decision 3,262, June 2d, 1877, herewith presented from synopsis of decisions 1877, p. 205, wherein it is evidenced that the customs appraiser at San Francisco, and the collector of customs at Port¬ land, Oregon, officially report that such sugars were not commonly imported into San Francisco and Portland, and there known as Sandwich Island sugars prior to the adoption of the treaty of 1875. Hawaiian Sugar — When Dutiable under Treaty. Treasury Department, June 2, 1877. Sir: The Department has had under consideration your report of December 2 last, with accompanying documents, in relation to the appeal (2559 e) of the California Sugar Refinery, per C. A. McNulty, attorney, from your assessment of duty on certain 388 kegs sugar imported per bark “ R. C. Wylie,” from Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, November 14,1876. The appellants claim that the sugar in question is entitled to free entry under article 1 of the reciprocity treaty between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands, ratified January 30, 1875, and the act of August 15, 1876, carrying the treaty into effect. 14 By the terms of that treaty and the law of Congress passed in pursuance thereof, approved August 15,1876, tree entry is accorded to muscovado, brown, and all other unrefined sugar, the growth and manufacture or produce of the Hawaiian Islands, “ meaning thereby the o-rade of sugar heretofore commonly imported from the Hawaiian Islands and now known in the markets ot San I rancisco and Port¬ land, Oregon, as Sandwich Island sugar.” Three questions are therefore presented for consideration : First. Is the sugar in question of the growth and manufacture of the Hawaiian Islands ? Second. Is it unrefined sugar ? . J Third. If so, is it the grade of sugar which was commonly im¬ ported from the Hawaiian Islands, and known in the markets of San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, at the date of the adoption of the treaty, as Sandwich Island sugar? .1 Upon the first point it is conceded that the sugar is the growth and manufacture of the Hawaiian Islands. As to the second point, I have to state that, upon the submission of samples of the sugar to the experts of the customs at some of the principal ports, there appears to be a difference of opinion among them as to whether the sugar can properly be' regarded as unrefined. It appears to have been manufactured by what is known as the “centrifugal process,” and during the process of manufacture a jet of water was introduced so as to more fully clear it of its impurities. The rate of duty upon imported sugar is based mainly upon its color by the Dutch standard, and Schedule G of the Devised Statutes imposes a duty of four cents per pound on sugar above No. 20, Dutch standard in color, and on all refined loaf, lump, crushed, powdered, and granulated sugars. In the case of Barlow, claimant of 85 hogsheads of sugar, (ap¬ pellant against the United States, 7 Peters, page 404,) it is held by the Supreme Court of the United States that the term “ refined sugar” is to be construed as exclusively limited to such as has assumed at some time the form of white refined loaf or lump sugar. Applying that rule to the present case, it would clearly appear that the sugar in question is to be regarded as unrefined within the meaning of the treaty and of the act of Congress before mentioned. Upon the third question, as to whether this grade of sugar was at the time of the adoption of the treat} 7 commonly imported into San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, and there known as Sandwich Island sugar, you report that the appraiser states that sugar of the grade in question was not , prior to the adoption of the treaty, commonly imported , although there had been a few importations of it made into your port prior to the adoption of the treaty. As opposed to this, is the statement of twenty-one merchants and dealers in such sugar at San Francisco to the effect that the sugar in question is of the grade commonly imported from the Sandwich Islands, and that at the time of the 15 treaty it was known in the markets of San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, as Sandwich Island sugar. They fail to show, however, that sugar of as high a grade as the present was commonly imported into Man Francisco from the Hawaiian Islands at the lime of, or before, the adoption of the treaty. The papers in the case were referred to the collector of customs at Portland, Oregon, for report upon this question, and he states that sugar of the grade embraced in this appeal—that is, sugar above No. 20, Dutch standard—was not commonly imported into Portland prior to the adoption of the treaty. The reports of the appraiser at your port and the collector of customs at Portland, Oregon, are therefore accepted as conclusive upon the question of fact as to the grade of the sugar imported prior to the adoption of the treaty, and as these reports show that sugar of the grade embraced in this appeal was not commonly im¬ ported into those ports at that time, it follows that it is to be re¬ garded as not admissible, free of duty, under the treaty. Your assessment of duty having been made by the standard of the Dutch color, in accordance with Schedule G of the Revised Statutes, your decision is hereby affirmed. * * ***** Respectfully, John Sherman, Secretary. Collector of Customs, San Francisco , Cal. The decision quoted would properly app^ with equal force to all Hawaiian vacuum-pan centrifugal sugars even when below 13 or 16 D. S. iircolor, none of which are “ muscovado, brown, and other un¬ refined” or raw sugars, such as were commonly imported prior to the Treaty. The Government has no more right to exempt Haw¬ aiian centrifugals below No. 20 D. S. in color than it had to exempt the No. 18 to 20 D. S. sugars upon which duty has been levied as already shown. The assumption that sugars when below No. 20 are unrefined sugars entitled to free entry, and that sugars must be white-loaf or lump in order to be called refined is nonsense, and is actually con¬ tradicted by the Government in levying duty on Hawaiian sugars when above No. 18 or 20 D. S. in color, in 1877 and since. Drawback is also allowed by the Treasury Department—on re¬ fined hard sugar, 3.18 cents per lb.; on refined coffee sugar above 20 D. S., 2.58 cents per lb.; on refined coffee sugars No. 20 and under, 2.08 cents per lb.; thus showing that refined sugars range from 12 or 13 D. S. to above 20 D. S. in color, and from refined molasses sugars—yellows—to hard white refined sugars; this is proven in numerous samples of refined sugars before me, secured from the current outturn of the leading refineries of this country, ranging from 12 to above 20 D. S. in color. 16 The high grades of Hawaiian vacuum-pan sugars now claiming and obtaining free entry, as “ muscovado, brown, and other unre¬ fined sugars,” are no more exempt from duty under the Treaty than relined coffee sugar or white-loaf or lump sugar would be. Regarding China and Manilla sugars, and the opportunities af- forded by the Hawaiian treaty for entering them at Hawaii and ship¬ ping them thence to the United States, the bankrupt planters exhib¬ ited a rapid and curious increase of Hawaiian sugar production as imported for consumption after the Treaty, largely prior to any material yield from the cane-fields of Claus SpreckePs planting. During ten years prior to the Treaty the normal increase in im¬ ports of Hawaiian sugars was from 15,197,061 in 1867, to 20,978,374 lbs. in 1876. Since the Treaty the imports of free sugars have increased from 20,978,374 lbs. in 1876, to 106,181,858 lbs. in 1882. If this increase has been actually normal in consequence of the advanced production of sugar in the Sandwich Islands, the Treaty is nevertheless a gigantic evil which, increasing with enormous rapidity, will, if not checked, destroj' home production and refining and become a worse burden to consumers than double the present duty on sugar could ever be, through the workings of the gigantic sugar food monopoly that would then command the American market. The temptation to buy low-grade raw sugars in China, Hong- Kong, and adjacent countries, and land them at Hawaii to be clayed or semi-refined in vacuum-pansand reshipped thence to this country as Hawaiian sugars, duty free,is not only seemingly irresistible, but the opportunity is supplied by the reciprocity treaty between the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii. Hon. James M. Comly, Ex-United States minister at Honolulu, says : us, paying ■ article for China figures largely in Hawaiian commerce, and sugar presents far greater speculative allurements than rice, while the reciprocity treatv and the kin lbs. per annum, in addition to the outturn of existing Pacific coast refineries. Free sugars have also enabled the manipulators thereof to transfer a large portion of the Pacific coast refiuing industry to the plantations in the Hawaiian Islands. 20 Free sugars enable Sprockets & Co. to import China and Manilla sugars at farge advantage over Louisiana and Eastern letiners, and will soon enable the free sugar dynasty to breakfree^uSS market from time to time, only to corner for a li^e, until free 8 u 1 oiler, Secretary ; Brooklyn Sugar Refining Co., Jul. A. Stursberg, Secretary ; Globe Re¬ finery, per Frank Lazarus; B. H. Howell,Son & Co., Knowlton & Co., J. de Rivera & Co., Leaycroft & Co., Willett & Hamlen, A. Lueder, Morewood & Co., R. A. Tucker & Co., Dwight & Platt, Louis Monjo, Jr., & Co., R. P. Ruck & Co., Elmen- horst & Co., Evan J. Fraser, H. A. Yatable & Son, Fabbri & Chauncey, Grinnell, Minturn & Co., H. H. Swift & Co., S. W. Welsh, Havemeyers & Elder, Maitland, Phelps & Co., Spence, Montague & Co., Jules Sazerac & Co., Moller, Sierck & Co., Dick & Meyer. BOSTON. Continental Sugar Refinery, by David Townsend, Treasurer ; Nash Spaulding & Co.; Bay State Sugar Refining Co., per E. F. Atkins, President; E. Atkins & Co., J. A. Emmons & Co., Whitney, Paisland & Co.; Boston Sugar Refining Co., by N. P. Hamlem, President; Willett, Hamlen & Co., Cotton & Halev, F. W. Nickerson & Co., Gossler & Co., Albert A. Cobb & Co., Charles O. Foster & Co., Henry Gard¬ ner, J. Van Prang & Co., E. Williams & Co., John L. D'Widf & Co.; Standard Sugar Refining Company, by J. B. Thomas, President; Rufus C. Cushman & Co., Henry Hastings & Co., Alfred Winsor & Son, John W. Candler & Co., Aaron D. Weld’s Sons, Cyrus Wakefield & Co., Thomas Dana & Co. PHILADELPHIA. Harrison, Havemeyer & Co., E. C. Knight & Co., McKean, Borie & Co., E. F. Cabada & Co., Lawrence Johnson & Co., A. F. Damon & Co., Theo. Wattson & Sons, John F. Crain, Samuel & Frank Field. The reply to the above modest and reasonable protest and request, was as follows : Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, Washington, Nov. 6, 1882. Gentlemen :—This Department is in receipt of your petition dated the 30th ult., with its enclosure, relating to the admission of sugar from the Sandwich Islands, and requesting that “ some other tri¬ bunal ” than the Collector of Customs at San Francisco shall decide as to what sugar may be imported free of duty under the treaty with the Hawaiian government. In reply I have to state that a report upon the subject hassbeen requested from the Collector of Customs at San Francisco, but that 28 he is in no wise authorized by law or instructions from this depart¬ ment to decide whether the sugar to which you refer, imported at New York, shall be treated as covered by the provisions of the treaty. The decision will be made by this Department after the facts in regard to the matter shall have been ascertained. H. F. French, Acting Secretary. Inasmuch as the Treasury Department has had six years iu which to ascertain “ the facts in regard to the matter,” during which Executive delay in correcting the existing abuses, millions ot dol¬ lars of revenue have been lost, and tens of millions of dollars filched from the pockets of consumers of sugar and taxpayers, through their continuance, it is refreshing to learn that “ the Col¬ lector at San Francisco has been requested to report on Hawaiian sugars,” and that “ the decision will be made by the Department after the facts in regard to the matter shall have been ascertained, etc.” The “facts in regard to the matter” were thus to come, and did come, from the Collector at San Francisco, according to the Secre¬ tary’s letter, and the late amazing decision is based thereon. How¬ ever high the character of the Collector and his employes in the San Francisco Custom House may be, upon whose report of “the facts in regard to the matter” said decision was based, they are sur¬ rounded and beyond question influenced, by the satellites of Claus Spreckels, the great Sandwich Island and California Sugar King, who, with his confederates, nets from five to six millions of dollars profit per annum through sugars entered free of duty by Treaty subterfuges. The Spreckel’s sugar dynasty can richly afford to subsidize the entire force of employes in the Customs service at San Francisco, and continue its army of lobbyists at the capital of this nation to prevent legislation against these monstrous treaty abuses, out of the moneys thus extorted from the people annually, and laugh at the outlay, since through their efforts the report of the Collector at San Francisco, and the subsequent Treasury decision in December last admit semi-refined and refined Hawaiian sugars as “ muscovado, brown, and other unrefined,” and encourage and sanction their illicit traffic and the existing treat} 7 abuses. In view of the facts, it is evident that the Secretary of the Treas¬ ury should have executed the tariff laws by seizing the advanced sugars, and sustaining the New York officials in levying duty thereon, placing the matter before the legal tribunals of this country, and invoking the aid of Congress in order that this treaty abort may be modified or abrogated, and the existing abuses be abated forthwith throughout the country. The official talk about a “ question of fact,” and “ the facts in the matter” is sheer nonsense in view of the late decision; the real fact 29 is, the Government has long permitted itself to be humbugged by subordinates in this matter of free sugars, as well as in that of Cuban centrifugal frauds, and neglected to exorcise its authorized supervision of free sugar entries on the Pacific Coast, which by almost imperceptible degrees have been changed from “ muscovado, brown, and unrefined” or raw sugars, to vacuum-pan sugars, finished at various stages of refining up to No. 16 to 20 D. S. sugars, and are now endeavoring to justify their unfortunate official record. Because these abuses germinated since the treaty of 1875 went into effect, and now flourish under arbitrary official sanction in violation of law, is no excuse for their continuance ; it is a singularly vivid illustration of the marvellous propensity of officials for manip¬ ulating Congressional legislation, that the treaty with Hawaii now overrides our tariff laws, and all other sugar producing countries with which we hold commercial relations are thereby forced to pay tribute to the bounty-fed sugars of Hawaii, while American consumers are overcharged, and producers and refiners of sugar are compelled to pay heavy duties and yet compete with an enormous foreign sugar refining industry which enters this country untaxed through this treaty blunder, and the sugar coloration subterfuges practiced to evade our tariff'in contiguous countries. Henry A. Brown. Saxonville, Mass., January , 1883. ■ .