SUGAR Frauds and the Tariff. THEIR RELATIONS TO Home Product, Consumption, Industry, Imports, Duties and Revenue, ANALYZED AND EXHIBITED. Duty & Drawback, Sampling & Grading, ADULTERATIONS AND THE POLABISCOPE. Official Statistics, Remedies, &c. HENRY .A.. BROWN EX. SPECIAL TREASURY AGENT, U. S. 1879 . SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS, SECTION I.-Page 3. cSXISTING ABUSES AND EVILS,-EXTENT OF REVENUE LOSSES ON IM¬ PORTED SUGARS,—MR. ROBERT HEWITT, Jr.’s, ESTIMATE CON¬ FIRMED AND DEFINED,-EVIDENCE PROVING ADULTERATION,— AVERAGE GRADES OF SUGARS ENTERED INTO CONSUMPTION,- DISCREPANCIES IN STATEMENTS OF LOW GRADE SUGAR ADVO¬ CATES-INDUCEMENTS AND FACILITIES FOR PRACTISING FRAUD furnished: BY THE PRESENT TARIFF,—OFFICIAL STATISTICS, TABLES AND RELEVANT DATA. 8ECTION II.— Page 9. XQW GRADE RAW SUGARS,-FACTS AND FIGURES PROPERLY AND LUCIDLY ADJUSTED AND EXPLAINED,-ENGLAND ABHORS THE STUFF THAT LOW GRADE ADVOCATES NOW CLAMOR FOR TO FEED AMERICAN CONSUMERS WITH,—AMERICAN SUGAR CULTURE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES THREATENED BY FORCING FOREIGN HALF- MADE SUGARS INTO CONSUMPTION,-GLUCOSE AND GRAPE SUGAR TO BE LABELLED AND SOLD AS SUCH,-THE LABOR QUESTION,- RELEVANT OFFICIAL SATATISTI^S, ESTIMATES AND TABLES. SECTION III.— Page 15. THE POLARISCOPE,—ITS VALUE IN CHEMICAL ANALYSIS,—MINUTE DE¬ SCRIPTION OF THE MODE OF TESTING SUGARS,-USELESS TO TEST 26,048 GRAMMES OF SUGAR, TO LEVYDUTYJON 1,000,000 LBS. OF SUGAR, —THE “ BOSTON PLAN ” AND SCALE OF DOTY AFFORDS FRESH MEANS OF FRAUD—EVIDENCE FROM SCIENTIFIC MEN AGAINST ITS USE FOR LEVYING DUTY,-RESULTS OF SAMPLE TESTING. SECTION IV. -PAge 21. ® UTY AND REVENUE,-RATES OF DUTY FOR NINETY YEARS,-NUMER¬ OUS ANALYSES OF ANNUAL CONSUMPTION, DUTIES AND RATES PER LB.. DITTO OF AVERAGE ANNUAL DITTO.-DITTO OF MELAD A AND MOLASSES,-TARIFF SHOWING CAPACITY FOR INCREAS¬ ING THE REVENUE AND DECREASING PRESENT DUTY RATES - 0^™r GAES ’- EEME " E N °- 13 D> S - BILL ’-NUMEROUS OFFICIAL STATISTICS, DATA, ESTIMATES AND TABLES. 187?/. BSI 3 'Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1878 , by the Author, Henry A. Brown , In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. FRAUDS AND THE TARIFF. Their Relations to Home Product. CONSUMPTION, INDUSTRY AND REVENUE ANALYZED AND EXHIBITED. Official Statistics and Relevants. “Sugar frauds,” including adulteration and revenue robbery, are tangible facts and great public abuses, which can only be prevented by destroying the facilities for fraud, and removing existing temptations, which encourage their practice by avaricious and unscrupulous men; this can injure no honest man , nor disturb any honest industry or trade : greed of gain is inherent in man; every opportunity to grasp unlawful gain is quickly discovered and; taken advantage of, by unprincipled men possessed of “ brains,[capital and skill,” and great industries natur¬ ally supply facilities of argument which may be subverted to protect nefarious practices, and furnish plausibilities, presently adapted and used, to cover illicit transactions and form central monopolies, at the expense of the general industry and prosperity of the nation at large. It is hardly to be expected, when opportunities to practice fraud are provided and sanctioned by law, and have become a “ custom,” that questions of honesty, morality, principle and truth will deter un¬ scrupulous men from taking a “Custom House oath” that, with bribery of officials and other facilities, will enable them to rob the rev¬ enue of duty and drawback undetected ; or hinder such men from mixing adulterants with refined sugar, which they have robbed the Customs to cheapen “ for the use of the poor man,” or prevent foreign producers from coloring sugars to evade duty. Convicting evidence and moral courage to employ the same, at the proper time and place , are essential weapons with which to battle agamst the perpetrators of sugar frauds. The desire of the champions of the present system to obtain “ proofs” will doubtless be fully grati¬ fied, the evidences having been secured before the “ great refiners ” prepared for investigation, and invited the “press” to look at boiling 4 syrup and see if they could detect adulterants therein, or ' l Acaru» Sacchari ” struggling for life. Under the existing tariff system there iS nothing strange in the at¬ tempts now made to sustain and perpetuate the present facilities for fraud, and prop the tottering power of a fraudulent sugar ring dy¬ nasty; is it not enough to rob the revenue of sugar duty and draw¬ back, and cheat the consumer with adulterants, without creating a Sugar Bureau with a host of officials, Mr. Wells as chief; to further deplete the Treasury and complicate the present sugar muddle ? Many leading journals have nobly entered upon the exposure cf sugar frauds, without insisting upon publishing vital evidence and proofs prematurely. Such have earned and will receive the gratitude of millions of consumers of sugars and syrups, and of tens of thous¬ ands, who are engaged or deeply interested in, the national industry of sugar culture in this country; that it should take rank with the re¬ fining industry in national importance, will be made apparent herein. Patience, gentlemen of the “ Press” and others, evidence and proofs of adulterations and frauds abound, and will be furnished when they will do the most good; of course there are no adulterants in “ pure and unadulterated sugar,” until you find them ; which fact is evidenced, for example, in the following extract from a letter from responsible and well known men, who know what home industry means as applied to the culture as well as to the refining of sugar: “ Cincinnati, Ohio, Nov. 28, 1878.” “Mr. H. A. Brown, Saxonville, Mass. “ One of our wholesale houses reshipped about 500 bbls. of sugar to the De Castro and Donner Sugar Refining Co. last summer, on ac¬ count of their poor quality; they kept about 300 or 400 barrels, which they say now they are sorry they did not reship. Mr. Ed. S. Wayne, our most eminent chemist, has analyzed some of them, and pronounces them 50 per cent, (fifty per cent.) grape sugar. Our interest is strongly in favor of encouraging the production of sugar in Louisiana, with a protective tariff for the same. She will make more sugar this season than any year since the war.” (Signed) “ Jas. H. Laws & Co.” One more example must here suffice: Seventeen specimens of common table syrups were recently ex¬ amined by R. C. Kedzie, A. M., Professor of Chemistry in the Michi¬ gan State Agricultural College, at Lansing. Fifteen of these proved to be made of glucose; one contained 141 grains of sulphuric acid (oil of vitriol), and ,24 grains of lime to the gallon; another, which had caused serious sickness m a who e family, contained 72 grains of sulphuric acid, ^•alfon 1 ” 8 ° f SU phate of iron ( C0 PPeras), and 303 grains of lime to the Having already presented numerous official statistics and tables of facts and figures, based upon official statistics of sugar consumed, duties collected, and drawback paid thereon, for several years and upon the statements made by Messrs. Tlieo. A. Havemeyer, Solon Wnn^f e Th aD w° ther 8 , Ugar imp0rters and refiners, before Chairman Wood of the Ways and Means Committee, wherein it appears upon record as uncontradicted evidence, that the revenue was robbed of sugar duty approximating to $12,898,259 in two years, 1876-1877, be¬ sides drawback stealing ; it hardly seems necessary to repeat in ex- tenso those figures, or proceed further in that analysis at present. Record in brief of certain facts will here suffice in that relation; other equally important topics now claim attention. Briefly reverting to the official data, tables and deductions referred to above, we find that, Mr. Solon Humphrey, a sugar importer, stated in relation to grades of sugars D. S., that the proportions of im¬ ported sugars entered into consumption were as follows: Of No. 7 D. S., 20 per cent.Duty lfc. and 25 per cent, per lb. Of No. 10 D. S., 60 to 65 per cent. Duty 2c. and 25 per cent, per lb. Above 10 D. S., 15 to 20 per cent.Average 2£c. and 25 per cent, pei lb. The following tables are based on the above proportions (also corro¬ borated by other importers.) applied to the actual number of pounds of imported sugars entered into consumption and the liquidated duty thereon; an average of 2£c. per lb. is used as duty on sugars above No. 10 D. S. After giving the result of numerous analyses in tables based upon official statistics, 1 closed the list of such with the following: The evi¬ dence preponderates that so far as imported dry sugars enter into con¬ sumption in this country, the actual average grade thereof measured by the Dutch standard, is above No. 10; consequently the proper aver¬ age rate of duty cannot reasonably be fixed at less than 2.8125 cts. per lb. without stigmatizing the general trade as importers of the poorest known sugars by preference, while England and other countries, includ¬ ing the active producers, consume the better grades. The following result, I am satisfied, is below the actual facts as regards duty evasions on dry sugars, imported and entered into consumption in the two fiscal years 1876 and 1877: Entered into consumption, Duty received, Drawbaok paid, 1876 and 1877. 1876 and 1877. 1876 and 1877. 3,017,268,399Jbs. $71,962,414. $4,867,485. Duties liquidated. Drawback paid. Nett duty rec’d. $71,962,414. $4,867,485. $67,094,929. Entered into consumption. Rate of duty. Proper duty. 3,017,268,399 lbs. 2.8125c. $84,860,673 Duties received less drawback paid.... 07,094,929 Duty discrepancy in two years, 1876 and 1877.$17,765,744 Less drawback paid in 1876 and 1877. 4,867,485 Nett duty discrepancies, 1876 and 1877.$12,898,259 Mr. Robert Hewitt, jr., presented to the Wood Committee the fol¬ lowing statement (which I again repeat). The statement seems to have created much discussion as to how the 72.86 percent, was obtained and on other points,Jwhich are readily explained. Mr Robert Hewitt’s statement reads as follows: The following data, compiled from records in the Bureau of Statistics at Washington, and deductions therefrom, are respectfuily submitted to the Ways and Means Committee of In¬ vestigations of Customs’ business at New York, on the subject of sugars imported and entered into consumption in the United States, and duties liquidated thereon. Sugar importations entered into consumption in the fiscal years end¬ ing June 30, 1876, 1877, and for New York alone in 1878: Weight, lbs. Duties received. Rate per lb. 1876. .1,561,880,545 $37,625,064 2.41 1877.. 1,455,387,854 34,337,350 2.36 Sugar importations entered into consumption at New York, fiscal year 1878: 1878.. 1,073,598,143 lbs. $24,834,786 2.3131 —being 72.86 per cent, of the total importations into the United States for the fiscal year 1878. New York importations amount to 72.86 per cent, of total for 1878. New York importations grade abovu No. 10 D. S, as per estimate of the Commission on the New York Custom House, known as the Jay Commission, and the testimony of New York refiners. Consequently, at least 72.86 per cent, of total importations are above No. 10 D. S. Rate of duty on 73 per cent, of total imports, per lb.2 8125c. Rate of duty on 27 per cent, of total imports, per lb.2.50c. Average.2.7281c. RECAPITULATION. 187fi 1 *. Ra teperlb. Duty received. 1876. •1.561,880,545 at 2.41c. Collected duty... .$37,625,064 1,561,880,545 at 2.7281c. Correct duty. 42,610,053 Revenue discrepanoy. $4,984,989 1877.. 1,455,387,854 at 1,455 387,854 at 2.36c. 2.7281c. Collected duty-$34,337,350 Correct dutv. 39, 704,799 1878.. 1,073,598,143 at 1,073,598,143 at Revenue discrepancy.$5,367 449 AT NEW YORK ALONE. -- 2.3131c. 2.7281c. Collected duty... .$24,834,786 Correct duty. 29,413,339 Revenue discrepancy.$4,578,553 When Mr Hewitt's statement was made, the returns f t imports to 30 1878 e wer the fiscal year ending June dU > 1878, were of dry sugars as follows- All other ports per cent. .'. 7 . 7 . 7 .' . 27 it And the question of grade being above No 10 D q ™ .T " b3Sed UPOtt ““ reported by^Jay 7 Official Reports on Sugar Drawback, page 4) and upon that of honorable refiners, while actual facts and figures herein properly exhibited and explained, more than confirm the statement made by Mr. Hewitt. Messrs. Theo. A. Havemeyer, Lawrence Turnure, Solon Hum¬ phrey and others, testified before Chairman Wood in substance- “that there was an increasing demand for the lower grade raw sugars every year, and a falling off in the demands for higher grades; that much cheaper and poorer sugar was imported and used the past year than ever before; that the low grade sugars have increased enormous¬ ly.” Abundant testimony of the same sort was given then, and has- been reiterated since. The impression conveyed by the testimony referred to, was that, sugars of inferior grade costing less than ever before, were called for., and imported more than ever, in proportion to the imports of raw su¬ gars; and Mr. T. A. Havemeyer testified, “that since 1870 the importa¬ tions from Cuba have only increased about 8 or 9 per cent.; while the im¬ portations from Brazil, and other low producing countries, have in¬ creased since 1870 from forty millions of pounds to two hundred andfoi'ty, millions of pounds in 1877.” It looks very much like small business for these men to raid upom Cuba centrifugals and high grade sugars, and impute the present sugar excitement to Cubans; and the Cuban Refinery scare recently imported from Liverpool by Mr. F. B. Thurber has also very much the appear¬ ance of humbug, in view of the above testimony, that the importation# of Cubanjugars have increased only nine per cent, in eight years , while importations of low grades have increased six hundred per cent, in the same time; such statements about the annual pro rata increase of im¬ ports of cheap low grade sugars above referred to, do not, however,, agree with the facts in regard to the quality and value of the low grade sugars compared with the duty collected; in fact, false classification to evade duty is evident at every turn. Official statements in the Bureau of Statistics at Washington, fur¬ nish the following record for fiscal years, ending June 30 each year, in regard to imported raw sugars entered into consumption, declared value, and liquidated duty thereon; the cost per pound is added: Entered into Consumption. Declared Value. Duty Paid. Cost p. lb* 1876. 1,561,880,545 lbs. $63,860,813 $37,625,004 c.4.0887 1877. 1,455,387,854 lbs. 71,849,089 34,337.350 4.9360' Declared Value. Cost per lb. Duty Paid. Rate per lb. 1876. $63,860,813 c.4.0887 $37,625,064 c.2.41 1877. 71,849,089 4.9360 34,337,350 2.36 It should be borne in mind that in 1876 of the whole volume of sugars entered into consumption, 56,891,258 lbs. of sugar warehoused! prior to March 3, 1875, under the previous tariff, was withdrawn for consumption in 1876 at the former rate of duty; the balance consumed in that fiscal year, 1,561,880,545 lbs., was imported in 1876, and paid the present duty, amounting to $36,450,698, which increases the rate- 8 per lb. of duty paid on 1876 sugar imports consumed from 2.41 cents per lb., to 2.4219 cents per lb., as against 2.36 cents per lb. duty in 1877. Unless the invoices lie, the grade and value_of the entire volume of imported sugars entered into consumption increased from '4.0887 cents per lb. in 1876 to 4.9360 cents per lb. in 1877; while the rate of duty paid on liquidated entries fell from 2.42 cents per lb. (on 1876 sugars) in 1876, to 2.36 cents per lb. in 1877; no pretence is set up that low grade sugars cost more in 1877 and 1878; had there been the facts would again dis¬ pute such statement. In the official statement in the^Bureau of Statis¬ tics of average cost of raw sugars at place of shipment, computed in coin on the basis of prices current in the fiscal years 1876-7, is recorded as follows: Sugar not above No. 7 D. S. in color, per pound.c.3.50 Sugar above 7, not above 10 D. 8. “ “ 4.50 Sugar above 10, not above 13 D. S. “ “ 4.75 Average cost of low grade sugars “ “ 4.25 While, according to Messrs. Havemeyer and Thurber, who present the following table to prove a question about uniform duty, the prices paid for raw sugars imported in 1877-8 were^as follows: Sugar not above No. 7 D. S. in color, per pound.c.3.25 Sugar above 7, not above 10 D. S. “ 3.75 Sugar above 10, not above 13 D. S. “ . 4. Average cost of low grade sugars “ 3.66 Accepting the statements of these authorities that there has been a decline in the foreign cost prices of all low grade sugars imported, say since 1876 fiscal year, flanked by the statements previously quoted, that vhe demand for cheap low grade raw sugars for refining is on the in¬ crease, and that more poor sugar than ever before was imported and consumed the past year; the facts are in evidence that much better grades of sugar were imported in 1877 than were imported in 1876, and that much less duty was paid on the higher grade sugars in 1877, than ■was paid on the lower grade sugars imported in 1876. Neither is this discrepancy by any means made good by deducting Hawaii sugars entered free of duty since Sept. 1, 1876, under a One¬ sided reciprocity treaty; the importations of duty free sugars from Ha¬ waii in the fiscal year 1877 were 30,624,162 lbs , valued at $2 108 470- Cost per lb. 6.8849 cents; deduct this free sugar from the consumption of 1877 (l,4oo,387,854 lbs.), and the'.following nett exhibit of dutiable sugar consumed in 1877, value, cost per pound, duty paid, and rate per pound, perfects the analysis of this topic. *W19 C T& jJSJfljSb , Afte * thus allowin S every advantage to the advocates of the cheap rLT Sra ! d0 Sl f ar b v SmeS ’ tUe ab0VC exbibit3 P^sent opportunity to rise and explain discrepancies which unfold new phases of revenue robbery with every attempt to disprove them. This will be clearly evidenced in these pages as we proceed. CONSUMPTION & INDUSTRIES Facts and Deductions therefrom, about Sugars G-rading Below No. 16 D. S. EASED UPON THE STATEMENTS OF EXPERTS, MEASURED BY OFFICIAL STATISTICS AND TRUTH. In the testimony given before Chairman Wood, of the Ways and Means Committee, at New York, Sept. 17 and 18, 1878, and subse¬ quently reiterated in substance publicly, great stress has been laid upon the self-evident fact; that the majority of consumers of sugar, molasses, and syrups, that is, those who eat these articles of necessity, require cheap sugars, and by subverting this fact, a hue-and-cry has been raised about the “ poor man’s sugar, to bolster up the cunning fallacy set forth by those who sustain a sugar mon opoly built upon reve¬ nue robbery and adulterations in the article of sugar, that a uniform rate of duty on all sugars to No. 16 D. S. would exclude foreign low- grade sugars, and increase the price of sugar to consumers. September 17, 1878, before Mr. Chairman Wood, Mr. Theo. A. Havemeyer testified : “ The public think that sugar comes here pure, but when it is under¬ stood that in one sample there will be only 50 to 80 per cent, op pure sugar, and in another, from 90 to 98 per cent., they will take a different view.” The following day, the 18th September, Mr. Lawrence Turnure tes¬ tified, in reply to Mr. Chairman Wood— Question—What do you consider the average standard (by color standard) of sugars now imported ? “Answer—I can hardly answer that question, because it is de¬ creasing every year, —there is much poorer sugar this year.” In the New York Bulletin , of Nov. 25, 1878, we read : “ This stuff (said Mr. Theo. A. Havemeyer. handing a dark sample) contains 75 per cent, of sugar ; and here is another containing 58 per cent. Would it be fair to charge the importer 2| percent, (cents per pound ?) on 25 pounds of dirt and charge the other kind equally on 2 pounds of dirt ?” Accepting as evidence the sworn testimony and statements of Messrs. Turnure and Humphrey; Mr. Theo. A. Havemeyer and those whom he terms “great refiners,,’ boldly and knowingly labor to de- 10 crease the grade of imported sugars year by year, and succeed remark¬ ably well. ^ “This stuff,” as Mr. Havemeyer calls it, which contains 50 to 75 or 80 per cent, of sugar ; and 20 or 25 to 50 per cent, of foreign dirt, is what the gentry referred to call “ the poor man’s sugar,” from which they claim to produce “pure unadulterated sugar” for consumers, cheaper than can be produced from centrifugal and other raw sugars containing only about 2 to 5 per cent, of dirt; first, because the “ stuff ” costs less per lb. ; second, because the duty is less per lb. To encourage the importation of “stuff” made up of 50 to 75 or 80 per cent, of sugar , and 20 or 25 to 50 per cent, of dirt , at any price , and any rate of duty, is a direct raid upon the sugar producing industry of the United States , and upon home labor ; such “stuff” should be made to pay a prohibitory duty on that account , unless we intend to discourage and prevent home production : aside from this , the “stuff” is dearer abroad , and pays higher duty for the sugar therein contained , than fair refining sugar of No. 10 to 13 grade D. 8 ., costs or pays duty. For instance: the “stuff” referred to, is sampled and graded for duty, as No. 7 or below, D. S., and pays If cents plus 25 per cent, duty per lb., or 2.1875 cents per lb. upon 50 to say 80 per cent, of sugar, and say 20 to 50 per cent, of dirt ; striking an average, this would be 65 per cent, sugar, and 85 per cent, impurities, which presents tbe fol¬ lowing exhibit, using round numbers for example : “ Stuff ” Imported. 1,000,000 lbs. “ Stuff” Imported. 1,000,000 lbs. Actual Sugar. 650,U00 lbs- Grade. No. 7 D. S. 35 p. c. dirt. 350,000 lbs. Duty paid. $21,875.50 Duty per lb. 2.1875 cts. Am’t of Sugar. 650,000 lbs. Rate per lb. 3.3654 cts. Am’t of Duty. $21,875.50 Duty Paid. $21,875.50 Dirt on hand 350 000 lbs. Thus, according to the testimony of all parties, sworn to before the Ways and Means Sub Committee, and all subsequent statements of Theo. A. Havemeyer et al. , it is the purpose of the low grade advocates to encourage the importation of 1,000.000 lbs. of “ stuff,” containing 650,000 lbs. of sugar, and 350,000 lbs. of extraneous matter, all graded No. 7 or below D. S., the duty of 2.1875 cents per lb, is levied upon the whole amount, 1,000,000 lbs. of sugar and dirt mixed, but "he 650,- 000 lbs. of sugar being all that is of value, according to the testimony, must pay the duty on 1,000,000 lbs., hence the rate ot duty paid on “ the P° or man ' s sugar,” is 3.3654 cents per lb., or nearly equal to the rate of duty, under the present 1878 tariff, on first-class refining sugars of No. 13 to 16 D. S., which is 3.4375 cents per lb. Unless the 20 to 50 per cent, of dirt and “Acari” is eliminated from the “ stuff ” by the “ great refiners ” during the process of refining, it is certainly manufactured into “pure unadulterated refined sugar if the villainous compound is eliminated by refining, then only 65 lbs. of sugar and syrup remains as the sugar product of 100 lbs. of “ stuff, > and from this 65 lbs. must be deducted 5 or 6 per cent, waste in refin- 11 ing, leaving a nett average refined sugar product of say at most 61.50 lbs. from 100 lbs of “stuff.” It would be far better for importers, refiners, consumers and all concerned, that this 20 to 50 per cent of dirt should be eliminated by the foreign producer, and be left abroad as a fertilizer, for which use it is evidently well adapted, rather than to be worked up into “pure unadulterated refined sugar and syrup ” for American citizens to eat. The evidence of the several commissions and of refiners generally, is on record, tnat from 100 lbs. of good refining sugar 10 to 13 D. S.•, 92 to 95 per cent of refined sugar product is obtained in hard and soft sugars and syrup—as against 61.50 per cent of refined sugar product obtained from 100 lbs. of “ this stuff,” which England abhors, but which our sugar monopolists are so fearful may be shut out by adopt¬ ing a uniform duty on all sugars up to No. 16 D. S. Unless the loss by elimination of this 20 to 50 per cent of foreign matter is made good in refining the “ stuff,” by the addition of corn glucose and other adulterants, or the foreign matter is embodied with the refined sugar product, it is manifestly impossible to produce more than two-thirds the volume of refined sugar product from a given amount of the “ stuff,” that can be produced from the same volume of good refining sugars of No. 10 to 13 grade D. S. The refined sugar product, made from what Mr. T. A. Havemeyer terms “ stuff,” is not only much less in quantity, but proportionately inferior in quality to the refined sugar product obtained from the higher grades named; and in order to sell refined sugars made from “ stuff” cheaper than the high grade refined sugar product can be sold, extensive adulteration becomes inevitable. If melada is mixed with the “stuff” the case is no better, and if higher grade raw sugars are mixed with “ stuff” the matter is even worse and still more com¬ plicated, as the cost of the “stuff ” is increased thereby. Consumers pay about 20 to 25 per cent less per lb. for a compound of two-thirds or less pure sugar, and one-third or more miscellaneous adulterants, than they would pay for pure granulated sugar made from the cleaner grades of imported sugars, and are also compelled to con¬ sume at least one-third more of such compounds than would be required of pure sugar to obtain the same sweetening power. The facts are: that while some sugars of the wretchedly poor grades called “stuff” are imported, under this blind, vast quantities of much higher grade sugars, containing only from 2 to 10 per cent of impurities, are imported, and evade the payment of proper duty through false sampling and grading for duty; the immediate loss of cargo identity by official collusion, landing at refineries, mixing and melting, enable such sugars to enter into consumption as very low grade sugars, called “ stuff,” simply to involve the illicit transactions in mystery. Official evidence exists that from this same “ stuff ” refiners have, time and again, been able to obtain high drawback on 70 to 80 per cent of refined sugar product, exported as the product of cargoes of low 12 grade sugars entered for duty, sampled and graded to pay the lowest duty rate allowed by law on sugars, and have sold 20 to 30 per cent of the same cargoes for home consumption. The cry for low grade sugars, to supply the poor man with cheap sugar, is a pretense to cover monstrous iniquities, and for urging the retention of the present system of grades and classification, whereby the. revenue may be robbed ad libitum in spite of official precautions, and the public be compelled to pay for manufactured glucose and dirt in sugar, in order to obtain the cheap sugar compound that these mon¬ opolists demand should be manufactured for the benefit of the “ poor man.” Industry like that should be destroyed. The facts, evidence and testimony are against the continuance of the present legalized inducements to practice frauds in the importation of raw sugars, and in the manufacture of refined sugars; especially as regards grades claipaed to be below No 7 D. S. for levying duty, and ■“cheap but pure unadulterated refined ” product therefrom. Honest refiners and importers cannot compete with rascally trade like that and find a living profit; facilities of capital and skill, honestly employed in sugar business, must sink beneath the present incubus of fraud. Under the present tariff, which these men advocate so stoutly, with cries of “ Give us but justice,” “ Save us these great industries,” and other specious sophistries. Sugar Refineries have sickened and died, until very few save theirs are left. One after another they fell as fast as the great men rose , “whose brains and skill” secured the waiting channels of frauds and adulterations, and worked them into Capital, to kill the balance of those Refiners and Importers who failed to join the ring, and so make permanent those huge monopolies. Where is the labor question here? This is curtailing industries, not fostering and widening them. Blot out the present facilities for fraud, and make the sugar tariff sensible and simple in structure, without these numerous giades and rascal samplings, and great industries will rise again throughout the country. Will Mr. Havemeyer and the “great refiners, Professor Morton and Hon David A. Wells, or anybody who is enamored with the existing tariff system, which encourages cheating -if not poisoning consumers of refined sugars, and robbing the Public Treasury, undertake to explain how anybody can by the use of “ superior capital, energy and skill,” afford to pay 3£ cents per lb. for “ stuff ' and pay 2.1875 cents per lb. duty thereon, then eliminate the 2o per cent of dirt contained in the sample Mr. Havemeyer quoted, allow 5 per cent waste for refining, refine the balance, and sell the sugar product “ pure and un¬ adulterated” at 6| aud 7 cents per lb. to consumers? the result would be “ Stuff” imported. 1,001,000 lbs. “ Stuff” imported. 1,000,000 lbs. Cost 3^ cts. Grade for duty. $35,000. No. 7, or below D. S. Cost. Duty. $35,000. $21,875.50. Rate of duty. 2.1875 cents. Whole cost. $56,875.50 13 “Stuff ” imported. Dirt 25 per cent. Waste Ref'g. Nett Sugar. 1,000,000 lbs. 250,000 lbs. 50,000 lbs. 700,000 lbs. Raw sugar. Paid duty. First cost. Nett cost. 700,000 lbs. $21,875.50 $35,000 $56,875.50 “ Stuff ” imported. Net* sugar. Nett cost. Cost per lb. 1,000,000 lbs. 700,000 lbs. $56,875.50 8.125 cents. Should Mr. Havemeyer’s statement before Chairman Wood be used, to wit: That there is only 50 to 80 per cent of sugar in some samples of the imported “ stuff,” the average (heretofore named) of 35 per cent of dirt, would increase the nett cost of the raw sugar contained in the “ stuff” imported, as follows, exclusive of the expenses of refining, such as labor, etc.: Whole cost. $56,875.50 Nett sugar. 600,000 lbs. Cost per lb. 9.4782 cents. “ Stuff ’ imported. Cost 3£ cts. Duty 7 D. S. 1,000,000 lbs. $35,000 $21,875.50 “ Stuff ” imported. Dirt 35 per cent. Wastg. 1,000,000 lbs 350.000 lbs. 50,000 lbs. “ Stuff ” imported. Actual sugar. Nett cost. 1,000,000 lbs. 600,000 lbs. $56,875.50 Raw sugar thus obtained, costing 9.4792 cents per lb., or even 8.125 cents per lb., cannot be refined “ pure and unadulterated, 1 ’ and be sold to the “poor man’’for 6| to 7£ cents per lb. Other important ele¬ ments besides “ brains, capital, energy and skill,” lend their aid to pro¬ duce this remarkable phenomena of “ cheap sugar for the poor man,” made from imported stuff containing 50 to 80 per cent of raw sugar, and 20 to 50 per cent of dirt and offensive matter. Revenue robbery by false grading and under classification for eva¬ sion of duty, false sampling by which sugar that would, if honestly graded, pay duly on from No. 8 to 14 D. S., enter into consumption graded at or below No. 7 D. S., and rob the Revenue. Extensive adulterations in the refined product, particularly in soft white sugars, light yellow sugars and syrups, and the Polariscope test, are the essential elements employed to cheat the poor man, injure consumers of sugar, curtail and prescribe home industries, rob the Revenue and perpetuate the present system of levying duty, which enables sugar monopolists to enrich themselves and their abettors, and continue these gigantic frauds with impunity. According to the ninth census, the Raw Sugar of Cane Product of two States, Florida and Louisana, and the capital and labor there em¬ ployed in this purely native industry was, in 1870, as follows—exclu¬ sive of maple sugar, of refining, and of the capital and labor employed in cultivating the sugar cane from which the sugar was obtained: Houses. Capital, Employes. Wages. 713 $10,248,475 21,299 $1,230,119 Materials. Molasses gals. Sugar hhd. Value. $6,069,271 4,368,687 77,317 $10,383,368. From the same authority we find that in 1870 the sugar product of native growth in the United Spates was as follows: 14 Cane sugar. Sorghum sugar. Maple sugar. 87,043 hhds. 24hhds. 28.443,645 lbs. Molasses from cane, 6,593,323 gals.; from Sorghum, 16,050,089 gals.; from Maple, 921,057 gals. Tens of millions of dollars capital are invested in lands and labor, material and machinery, buildings and implements of culture, produc¬ ing native sugars in our own country. In 1878 the yield will be the heaviest known for many years in Louisiana. And these are the in- dustries that are being effectually discouraged by the introduction of foreign “ stuff,” and the evasion of full duty on higher grades of foreign sugars, by entering such as “stuff ” grading below 7D. S. for duty. It should be understood that the industry of sugar refining is not of paramount importance when compared with the industry of sugar production in the United States. Numerous and extensive are the discrepancies in the statements made about low grade sugars; for instance, Mr. Havemeyer said, “This stuff (described above) contains only 75 per cent of sugar and 25 per cent of dirt; and again, “ Some samples of sugar have only 50 to 80 per cent of sugar.” Mr. Wells says that, by the “ Polariscope test, common and concrete melada average 82 per cent and below; fair, good (refining), 80 to 92; and centrifugals average above 92.” The “ stuff ” referred to, may have accidently “ passed ” the Customs under grade , through the carelessness of the sampler (?) If not, what is this nondescript called “ stuff ” which grades for duty below the worst melada? Let Congress settle this as well. Hereafter all such foreign “ stuff,” composed of three-parts sugar and one-part dirt, swarming with Arcarus Sacchari “42,000 to the pound,” all of which Arcari are cooked, in refining the dirt and sugar, in place of being eaten raw, and after being beautified with muriate of tin, sold to consumers as “ unadulterated refined sugars,” ought to be labelled publicly as follows: “ Stuff,” a foreign unadulterated sugar-compound , intended and prepared to evade duty, and prevent sugar culture and all outgrowing industries in the United States from struggling into life , if possible .” 15 THE POLARISCOPE TEST Encourages Frauds and Prevents Discovery FACTS ABOUT THE FOLARISCOPE FOB TEST¬ ING SUGAB FOB THE PUBPOSE OF LEVYING DUTY Duty Scale—The Boston Plan, Etc. It is well-known that the instrument called Polariscope, has been extensively used in the analysis of urine to detect secretions of grape sugar, and determine the quantity thereof ; that it is a valuable instru¬ ment for scientific purposes, suited to its capacity, when skillfully em¬ ployed, is not disputed. This very fact and abundant other evidence proves that such an instrument can at best only test an infinitesimal fraction of a box, bag, or hogshead of sugar, much less of an entire cargo The Polariscope mentioned above, however, is not used for testing cane sugar; there are several kinds, each used t for different scientific purposes. Webster describes the Polariscope to be “ an instrument consisting essentially of a polarizer and an analyzer, used for polarizing light, and analyzing its properties.” An instrument of the same name, fitted with ^crystals of quartz; to analyze crystals of sugar, and otherwise adapted to the analysis of cane sugar crystals in solution, is used for determining the percentage of pure saccharine matter in a given volume of sugar of cane solution. The process is as follows: The proportions being always necessarily the] same, in order to secure accurate results as regards the quantity actually tested. Weight of cane sugar crystals, 26,048 grammes; dissolve in 100 cubic centimeters of water, gently heating the preparation; add acetate of lead sufficient to precipitate; filter through prepared bonedust to clarify; reduce to the proper temperature, and fill a glass tube 200 millimeters in length, with the solution; place the tube in the Polariscope; turn on the light, look through and adjust the instrument until both hemis¬ pheres of the circle, that appears in the instrument to be divided by a dark line, present to the eye precisely the same shade of color. The test is then perfected; the per cent of pure sugar will be found regis¬ tered in degrees and fractions on the scale attached to the Polariscope, and may be read through the magnifying tube. 100 degrees represent entirely pure sugar crystals in solution. For the purpose of levying duty on sugars, the Dutch Standard 10 for determining grade is bad enough, but the use of the Polariscope will make matters infinitely worse, and furnish a vehicle for the safe practice of fraud indiscriminately upon the revenue, the importer, the buyer, and the consumer, at the option of operators and their instiga¬ tors. So delicate and sensitive an instrument as the Polariscope is valuable for purposes of chemical analysis; but for testing imported sugars for the purpose of levying duty thereon, or for sale, it would be impossible to devise any other method whereby the Government, tie importer,, or the buyer, or all together, could be defrauded with such perfect ease and safety, as through the means afforded by the use of thePolariscope ;. and against the dangerons temptation to fraud thus offeted, there ex¬ ists no adequate check or hindrance. For instance, the operator adds a few drops more of water than the proper quantity, and the grade is lowered; or a few grammes of sugar more than the proper quantity, and the grade is raised; the operator may if he prefer slightly adulterate high grade sugars and thus lower the grade for duty, and vary the practice at pleasure; nor is this all; the color test in the intrument, provides fresh opportunity for both error and fraud ; only the most accurate eye and skillful adjustment can ex- actly determine the perfect color blending which marks the record of true grade upon the scale; and the slightest deviation therefrom, raises or lowers the grade at ths pleasure of the operator; detection is next to impossible. While in honest and skillful hands, the volume of cane sugar crystals in a prepared sample, can be determined in the Polariscope, a cargo or single package of sugar will supply as many different classifications as there are samples used for testing. The writer has recently spent much time, with several prominent operators of the Polariscope in New York, in the thorough investigation of the instrument and its use, and in ob¬ serving the analysis of numerous samples of cane sugar crystals, in order to know whether or not the Polariscope test is practicable for the purpose of equitably levying duty upon imported sugar, and is satisfied that its use will facilitate and protect revenue robbery. The late Professor Henry highly praised the Polariscope as an in¬ strument capable, in scientific hands, of accurately determining the percentage of pure saccharine matter contained in a given quantity of cane sugar crystals; but Professor Henry’s opinion was predicated upon what honest analysis could do under favorable conditions, and therefore cannot properly be quoted in unqualified support of the Polariscope when used to test cargoes of sugar for levying duty, or for purposes of trade, when such stupendous public interests are at stake. The delicate and secret nature of the Polariscope test, renders it easy and safe for the operator to manipulate samples of sugar at will ; not only that, take any hogshead, box, or bag of imported raw sugar, draw from the same package, two, three or more samples, and all will 17 test different degrees of sugar strength in the Polariscope. Take several samples from one package, mix them together, draw any number of samples from the mixture, and the Polariscope will give a different fractional result in each analysis. Sometimes such variations are suffi¬ cient to change the grade of a cargo of sugars out of all -reason, and the operator can grade up or down at will undetected. The polariscope used to test sugars, deals only with sugar and syrup of cane crystals in solution, and is useless to discover the character of adulterations in sugar ; so that glucose, grape sugar, flour, starch,, barytes, muriate of tin, sulphuric acid, bisulphate of lime, and other substances may abound in cane sugars and syrups analyzed in the polariscope and not be identified. The volume only of such substances can be determined by this test, its use must therefore be confined only to determining the amount of pure cane sugar contained in minute samples 1 have before me the results of two sample tests made for me under my own observation, by a well-known and exceedingly skillful operator of the polariscope in New Yorlp City. About two ounces of sugar was taken at random from a package of raw sugar, thoroughly mixed, and from the mixture two samples were tested in the polariscope with the followiRg result, copied from the register of the instrument by the oper¬ ator. The first sample tested, recorded 85.d degrees saccharine matter; the second sample tested recorded 87.8 degrees of saccharine matter. Still greater differences constantly appear in testing sugar from the same packages, of which fact evidence is always obtainable by honest analyses. In order to accurately determine the grade of a cargo of raur sugar by the polariscope lest, the whole cargo must be reduced to a prepared solution , of the proper proportions of sugar of cane, water, and acetate of lead, and samples thereof be tested. Relevant to the polariscope, Dr. Wm. T. Booth, an eminent New York sugar refiner of unquestionable integrity, who testified so fear¬ lessly against sugar frauds and adulterations, before Chairman Wood of the Ways a„d Means Committee, Sept. 18, 1878, then declared, in regard to revenue robbery and the causes, “ that fraud on the revenue is the father, adulteration of refined sugar the mother, and the polari¬ scope the child.” The order is perfect. Professor C. F. Chandler says: ‘‘The polariscope will complicate the collection of duty and open new facilities for fraud. The ordin¬ ary testing of sugars by the polariscope is not accurate within one per cent; in fact, differences of two or three per cent, or even more, may occur when different samples are taken from the same lot of sugar and tested by different chemists. The result of the test by the polariscope will be affected by various circumstances. The exposure of the sample to the air may result in the loss or gain of water, according to the weather, and thus raise or lower the test. The care and skill of the chem¬ ist, the accuracy of his balance, weights, measuring flask, and polari¬ scope, temperature of solution, all affect the result. It is thus prac- 4 18 t'Acally impossible to fix the value of the sugars by the polariscope within one two per cent. The presence in the sugar of other substances which also influence the readings of the polariscope is important, substances * constantly present in various quantities. This plan of classification by ■ %he polariscope will give the greatest opportunities for fraud, and will, 1 fear, if adopted , make it impossible for honest men to carry on the business ■ofi'efining sugar." Evidence like the above from Professor Chandler, who is one of the best known chemists in this country, should be well considered by Congress and the public. A careful examination of the instru¬ ment, and a practical observation of its use, in the hands of chemists who are above suspicion, should be made by appropriate Committees in Congress deliberately and in full Committee, in order to distinguish between the use qf the polariscope for purposes where minute quanti¬ ties sufficiently determine a chemical test, and its use for determining the quality of a cargo of 1,000,000 lbs. of sugar, by testing 26,048 -grammes of the sugar in solution for the purpose of levying the proper duty on the cargo. Should the present classification of sugar be retained, and the polar¬ iscope test be adopted, the facilities for fraud will be manifoldly in¬ creased; should a uniform duty on sugar be adopted upon two grades only, and the polariscope test alone be adopted, the facilities for fraud will be much greater than they now are under the D. S. test; should the D. S. and polariscope both be employed, it is evident that either -one or the other must be discarded, as it will be impossible to estab¬ lish a color test and a polariscope test which wtll ever agree as to grade. England has often been quoted as using the polariscope; as there is now no duty on sugar imported into England the polariscope ■5s not there used for levying duty, and has never been, the duty having been specific upon quality determined by color sampling and weight. In F ranee. Ihe tricks of testing sugar by the polariscope condemns its introduction here for levying duty. Treasury officials, collectors and appraisers, have their hands «fall already, not only in the matter of levying duty on sugar, but on all other imported merchandise subject to duty; and when it is coolly proposed by the “Boston Plan” to further mystify the tariff on sugar, by using the polariscope with the following astute arrangement for testing and levying duty thereon, to which the present avalanche of classifications under the Dutch standard is nothing for complexity, it is doubtful whether it would be pos¬ sible to produce a better proof of the utter uselessness of all attempts to dabble with the polariscope for levying duty. Every degree from 75 to 500 must be tested, in order to equitably levy duty by the polari- soope, otherwise some paity, always including the Government will assuredly be swindled, no matter whether duty be levied at every de¬ gree or at every fifth degree. The following composite is called the 19 “Boston Plan’’: On all sugars, Melada, &c., not above No. 13 D. S. in color: Testing not above 75 degrees.cts. 1.75 per lb. Testing above 75 degrees and not above 76 degrees_cts. 1.80 “ 76 “ “ 77 “ .. . .cts. 1.85 “ 77 “ “ 78 “ .. ..cts. 1.90 “ 78 “ “ 79 “ .. . .cts. 1.95 “ 79 “ 80 “ .. . .cts. 2. “ 80 “ “ 81 “ .. . .cts. 2.05 “ 81 << 82 “ .. . .cts. 2.10 “ 82 83 “ .. ..cts. 2.15 “ 83 “ “ 84 “ .. . .cts. 2.20 84 “ “ 85 “ .. . .cts. 2.25 “ 85 “ “ 86 “ .. . .cts. 2.30 “ 86 “ “ 87 “ .. . .cts. 2.35 “ 87 (« 88 “ .. . .cts. 2.40 “ 88 (i 89 “ .. . .cts. 2.45 “ 89 “ “ 90 “ .. . .cts. 2.50 “ 90 “ 91 “ . .cts..2.55 “ 91 “ “ 92 “ .. . .cts. 2.60 “ 92 “ “ 93 ‘ .. . .cts. 2.65 “ 93 “ “ 94 “ .. . .cts. 2.70 “ 94 “ 95 “ .. . .cts. 2.75 “ 95 “ << 96 “ .. . .cts. 2.80 “ 96 it 97 “ .. . .cts. 2.85 “ 97 “ 98 “ .. . .cts. 2 90 “ 98 “ “ 99 “ .. . .ct8.2.95 [ sugars above No. 13 D. S. not above 16 D. S.. . .cts. 3.25 “ “ 16 D. S. “ 20 D. S... .cts. 3,75 Above No. 20 D. S. and on refined sugars.cts. 4.50 •On molasses testing not above 60 deg. per gal.cts. 6. “ “ 56 deg. “ .cts. 10. Quite lively times the arrival of a cargo of sugar must create among samplers, appraisers by the Dutch standard, gaugers, weighers and •chemical officials with polariscopes, “enfans de famille,” all indus¬ triously occupied in sampling, grading, gauging, testing and weighing imported sugar and its relevants for the purpose of levying duty. The range of variations reported officially from Philadelphia to the Secre¬ tary of the Treasury, wherein the polariscope furnishes necessity for seventeen rates of duty on sugars not above No. 7 D. S ., and thirteen rates on sugars above 7 and not above No. 10 D. S., and upsets the Dutch standard and the hydra-headed system of classification with it, again teaches the necessity for doing away with the present complex sugar tariff, the abuses and evils of which and the facilities it furnishes ’for fraud, are only multiplied and intensified by the use of the polari¬ scope. The Secretary of the Treasury, in his reeent Report, has shown oj. 20 disposition to rely solely ;upon tin polanreope tor detemmmgJhe confined to one dividing line instead of six, and asks authority W use the polariscope simply as an auxiliary aid to the co or ® s > that The Secretary of the Treasury sensibly says: In the event tb duties upon sugars are made dependent to any Jen color by the Dutch Standard, it is recommended that authority be g to this Department to ascertain the true saccharine strength of ported sugars by means of the polariscope, and that tht nations it the color of sugars and their saccharine strength be definitely piescn y ^ThTconclusion is inevitable, in view of the evidence, that while the polariscope might possibly assist the Government in speci““*“> like other chemical analysis, to adopt that instrument fo P P of levying duty on sugars, and for selling sugars, without P ro ™ d ' n S safeguards which do not now exist , will be to prostitute a beautiful and valuable scientific instrument, and the science of chemistry , to base u purposes- of fraud. 21 SUGAR, RAW AND REFINED. Customs Revenue from Sugars. Duty and Drawback—Sampling and Grading PRACTICAL REMEDIES FOR EXISTING ABUSES BE LEVANTS AND STATISTICS. LIGHT AND TRUTH AGAIN. Sugar, as the‘term is generally understood, being an article of ne¬ cessity to man is naturally an article of vast importance to the great interests of national commerce, industry, and revenue, prominent among which are tbe home culture and the manufacture of raw sugar, and its concomitants, molasses and syrup of sugar ; with these crude preparations, which can be and often are freed from dirt in making, without “refining,” man’s wants may be adequately supplied, and his saccharine tastes be amply gratified with pure sugar, without eating the “Arcarus Sacchari," said “to be 42.000 to the pound in raw sugars.” Raw sugars, grading No. 16 D. S., in color, can also be eaten, with¬ out one being compelled to masticate and swallow manufactures of glucose and other adulterants, including “Arcari” cooked, “ 42.000 to the pound,” subtly mixed with the raw sugar of commerce during the process of “ refining ,” to cheapen the “pure unadulterated refined sugar," in order to steal from consumers, and rob the revenue of draw¬ back in addition to duty; consumers, however, prefer refined sugar, but mean to have it pure if possible. Luxury, not necessity, requires that raw sugars should be “refined;” “voluptuousness in the gratification of appetite” has as usual with man, been taken advantage of to create and maintain a legitimate and highly proper industry ; such industry, when honestly conducted, should be encouraged, fostered and equitably protected, by all proper legislative and other means; these are self evident truths which no reasonable man denies. Americans^ excel in “refining sugar;” so much the better, and all the less danger from Visionary Cuban Re¬ fineries. The hue-and-cry of a raid upon the great sugar refining industry of 22 this country by foreign producers of Cuban centrifugals and high grade partially refined sugars by their Agents in this country,”—is a delusion and a snare ; the raid is by honest men upon a tariff system of levying duty upon imported sugars, that furnishes extraordinary facilities and unusual inducements to practice frauds successfully, and places innu¬ merable difficulties and potent temptations in the way of officials, which have come to be obstacles powerfully opposed to the collection of the revenue, and the proper execution of revenue laws. Threefold robbery is the fungus outgrowth of the present sugar tariff ; a few more classifications and grades of sugar for duty, with the Polariscope to turn the scale, and a Sugar Bureau to play the part of “Justice Monkey,” and the Secretary of the Treasury might as well sit and whistle for duty on sugar, and sign warrants for drawback blindfolded, as to attempt to collect duty on sugar, beyond -what im¬ porters may see fit to divide with the Government; under the present system, facilities are provided for stealing duty, and for stealing draw¬ back ; robbing consumers also by the use of adulterants, is the inevita¬ ble sequence. One uniform duty upon all imported sugars up to No. 16 D. S., of natural color, and one uniform duty upon all sugar above No. 16 D. 8., of color, can be collected; let us leave foreign “ stuff” “ contain¬ ing only 50 to 75 per cent, of sugar, and 25 to 50 per cent, of dirt,” (and dear at any price, as elsewhere herein explained) for the producers to cleanse; and encourage a healthful demand for clean raw sugars, at fair prices, for American refiners to work into suitable grades without adulterants, at a reasonable profit for themselves, and at prices satis¬ factory to consumers, who will then buy refined sugars from prefer¬ ence, and not be compelled, as now, to buy refined sugar compound, from necessity. Let the Glucose and Grape Sugar business, which Mr. David A. Wells tells us “has been entered upon with great success and now bids fair, at no distant day, to become, especially in the form of syrup, a great staple artiele of domestic commerce and consumption,” be kept distinct and separate from the sugar business, and let the articles be sold as glucose and grape sugar to whoever wants these breeders of kidney and skin diseases. To find grape sugar in the urine of those who are afflicted with “Bright’s disease of the kidneys,” which disease is aggravated and may be generated by the use of manufactured glucose, is ominous of death ; neither are glucose and grape sugar entitled to drawback, although disguised in “ pure and unadulterated sugar.” Advalorem duty on sugar was levied at 30 per cent from 1846 to 1857; and at 24 per cent from 1857 to 1861. Advalorem duty is always open to the practice of gross frauds by undervaluations. Should it be adopted for sugar, the first cost of imported sugar, so far as invoices thereof stated the same for duty, would rapidly decline. Adequate rem¬ edies are not numerous for undervaluation frauds, with prices to be 23 interpreted daily; nevertheless, advalorem duiy would be vastly preferable to the present pestiferous classif cation snarl; but the difficulty there again is, actual advalorem duty would prevent low grade men from doing all the swindling. They don't want an advalorem duty on that account; and therefore remain silent about it, or take it up tenderly, to show how nice the present tariff is for them. A single rate of duty on sugar, high enough to yield the duty now demanded from sugar and protect American sugar culture, would give a preference to high grades; while this would not exclude good refining sugars of low cost by any means, it would bring in sugars of higher cost suited] for eating without being refined, at refining sugar rates, admit refined sugar from Europe at the raw sugar rate, and encourage Americans to establish and operate Refineries in Cuba. This would injure the refiningjndustry of this country, and is just what a uniform rate to No. 16 D. S. and another above No. 16 D. S. will effectually prevent. Is it not infinitely preferable to adopt a single line properly adjusted to mark two color grade classifications for levying duty on sugars , rather than to con¬ tinue six lines to mark seven classifications as at present ? to wit, 1. Melada 2, No, 7; 3, No. 10; 4, No. 13; 5, No. 16; 6, No. 20; Dutch Standard in color. Raw sugars, grading up to and including No. 16 D. S. of natiiraV color, is the turning point; raw sugars of that grade will not injure the business of refining a particle, but will sustain refiners in producing pure refined sugars of the highest order of excellence, at reasonable prices, and cheaper grades of pure refined hard and soft sugars, to satisfy the wants of all classes of consumers, without causing them to buy- No. 16 raw sugar, or compelling them to buy adulterated sugar com¬ pounds, no matter how cheaply such sugar-coated breeders of disease and robbers of sweetness can be made and'be sold through the use of “.brains, capital and skill,” aided by glucose, grape sugar, muriate of tin, and “tricks of the trade.” * Uniform specific duty on sugar is no new experiment in this country but it should be borne in mind that the present abuses have grown and attained gigantic proportions since the adoption of the present schedule of classifications in 1870; the Dutch Standard having been adopted in 1861. Prior to March 2, 1861, the duties on sugars under various tariff acts were in substance as follows: 1789—1794 upon three grades ... 1794—1797 upon four grades. 1797—1804 “ “ “ . 1804-1812 “ “ “ . 1812-1816 “ “ “ . 1816—1832 “ “ “ . 1832—1842 “ “ “ . 1842—1846 “ “ “ .... 1846—1857 an advalorem duty of. 1857—1861 an advalorem duty of . . .l|c. 2£c. 5 cts. lb. . ,l£c. 2|c. 3c. 9 “ “ ..2 c. 2^c. 3c. 9 “ “ . ..2£c. 2^c. 3c. 9 “ .. .5 c. 5 c. 6c. 18 “ “ .. .3 c. 4 c. 10c. 12 “ “ .. .2|c. 3^c. 10c. 12 “ .. .2*c. 6 c. 6c. 6 “ .30 percent^ “ . *...24 “ 24 And on March 2, 1861, the D. S. having been adopted, the duty v^as rapidly increased from f of a cent per lb. to 3c., 34c. and 4c. per lb. in 1864; which rates were retained until the schedule of 1870 was adopted, to which 25 per cent has since been added. The duties on sugars at this writing, Dec. 1878, are as follows, when graded by the Dutch Standard of color: Not above No. 7 D. S. in color, per lb. l|c. plus 25 r per cent... ,.C2.1875 “ “ 10 “ “ “ 2 c. ‘ ‘25 “ ... .. 2.50 “ “ 13 “ “ 2£c. * ‘25 “ ... . 2.8125 “ 16 “ “ 2fc. ' “ 25 “ .. .. 3.4375 “ “ 20 “ “ 3ic. ‘ ‘ 25 “ .. .. 4.0625 Above “ 20 “ “ t< A f* “ *>5 “ rt t. “ 14 c. 1 ‘ 25 “ .. .. 1.8750 Melada Tank Bottoms, etc. The present rate of drawback on refined sugar exported, “ which are entirely the product of foreign duty paid sugars/’ after numerous gyrations which need not here be described, were fixed anew, by the present Secretary of the Treasury, to take effect Oct. 1, 1877 ; and are now, Dec., 1878, as follows, on Refined Sugars : Subject to a deduction of one (1) per cent. Drawback on what are known as hard sugars, per lb., 3.18 cts. drawback on White Coffee Sugars, above No. 20 D. S.; per lb., 2.58 cts. drawback on Refined Coffee Sugars; No. 20 and below per lb., 2.08 cents. The only thing wanted to perfect the existing spstem of threefold robbery engendered, facilitated, and protected by complicated tariff machinery, official collusion and the cargo-landing and sampling me¬ thods in operation, is the adoption by Congress of the Polariscope, with low-grade men to operate it, and a Sugar Bureau to supervise the division of the spoils. Little wonder that Treasury Officials, who have pigeon-holes and pockets stuffed with cases and convicting evidences of threefold sugar frauds, should count the chances as they gad gingerly among the weal¬ thy and powerful perpetrators of iniquities which the present sugar tariff invites and sustains ; nor that officials of easy virtue and large ne“ cessities, with uncertain tenure of office, find the temptations to aid and abet nefarious practices, tangible and irresistible , or that Special Agents’ “reports” remain in Washington, sometimes for months, un" read. In view of the facts in relation to sugar frauds and the proofs there¬ of, and of the six lines and seven classifications for duty now existing in the sugar tariff, each one of which presents the same opportunity for the “ variation, intentional or otherwise, of a single shade of color,” or if the Polariscope is used, of a single degree, that No. 16 alone will do, the question again and again arises in the minds of honest men, why multiply the chances for fraud by six, as under the present classification muddle, instead of reducing them to one? It matters nothing that the duty would be 24 cents and 4 cents with No. 16 D. S., as the only div¬ iding line, when we cojnsider the present duty ranging from 14 cents to 4 cents, with six fines of classification to multiply opportunities for fraud, instead of one. Neither is it reasonable that an article of absolute necessity to the masses as well as to the voluptuary, should be made to pay nearly one- third of the entire Revenue from foreign imports ; which under the present inextricably tangled tariff, sugar alone would do, were the full duty thereon collected by the Government; as it is, the record stands as follows, for the fiscal years ending June 30,1876-1877 : Total Revenue Duties Received Per cent, from Per cent, from all from Customs. from Sugars. Sugar Imports. other articles. 1876.. $148,071,984 $37,625,064 25.40 74.60 1877.. 130,956,493 34,337,350 26.22 73.78 Clearly the interests of the whole people would be better served, and the sugar producing interests of this country be amply protected by a uniform duty of two cents per pound, on all sugars up to and including No. 16 D. S., of natural color, and 4 cents per lb. on all sugars above No. 16 D. S.; which would simplify the whole business of levying and collecting sugar duty; drawback paid upon refined sugar exported should be based upon, and be the same duty rate actually paid on the imported raw sugar used in the manufacture of refined sugar ex¬ ported, regardless of the per cent, of hard and soft sugars that can be produced as the average product of refining, which cannot be fixed by laws of Congress, or by any general average. Really, there might be some advantage in legislating against existing defects in modes of “ sampling sugars ,” before compounding with sugar frauds on No. 13 D. S., to check enquiry, or adding complications called Polariscopic tests'; what use are tests of any kind, unless some honest mode of sampling, not quite bereft of common sense, first furnishes an equitable and proper sample ? What do ‘ crooked” Importers care about No. 13 D. S. grade or any other, so long as they can do the sam¬ pling by Mr. Dutcher’s method moved by proxy ? Give them loose sampling, and land the si gars where they want them, and any grade below 16 D. S. suits them, No. 13 D, S. especially. The present loose practices, called “ sampling sugars,” are the out¬ growth of the following loose legislation, and of an entire lack of proper .Customs Regulations bearing thereon : “Sec. 2914, Revised Statutes.—The standard by which the color and grades of sugar are to be regulated, shall be selected and furnished to the Collectors of such ports of entry as maj be necessary, by the Secretary of the Treasury, from time to time, and in such manner as he may deem expedient. “ Sec. 2915.”—“ The Secretary of the Treasury shall, by regulation, prescribe and require that samples from packages of sugar shall be taken by the proper Officers, in such manner as to ascertain the true quality of such sugar ; and the weights of sugar imported in casks or boxes shall be marked distinctly by the C. H. weigher, by scoring the figures indelibly on each package.” 26 Sampling} sugars for grading purposes is simple enough when hon¬ estly set about in a workmanlike and common sense manner, without riddling packages ; Mr. S. B. Dutcher, Appraiser at the^Port of A T ew York, “ who never heard of any sugar frauds,” testified Sept, 16, 1878, before Chairman Wood, as follows ; “ It requires a great deal of judg¬ ment to get at the exact proportions of the dry and wet sugar in the hogshead when there.is a foot. If the foot is a deep one, a larger proportion of the samples drawn from that part of the hogshead should be put with the other proportions, in order to make it the general sam¬ ple; if the “ foot” is very small, then the proportion of samples taken from it should be very much less. Sometimes they will bore a hogs¬ head six or seven times before they can satisfy themselves, they draw from the dry part and the w'et part, and see what the depth of foot is.” Comment upon the charming naivette of Mr. Dutcher’s testimony, or upon such an absurd method of sampling sugar, for grading and classification, would be a waste of time, except to say : such a method absolutely invites fraud, and should be put a stop to forthwith by the Secretary of the Treasury ; the following sensible method of sampling sugars for levying duty, was adppted by England in 1869, and contin¬ ued In use until the duty on sugar was abolished in 1875. “ Regulations for establishing an uniformity in practice of drawing samples of Muscovado sugar for assessment of the duty due thereon, viz.: “ That when practicable the cask should be raised from the hold of the ship in the same position in which it is stowed, and that a white mark should be placed on the cask to denote the top or part which was uppermost in the hold. “ That the samples should be drawn by cutting a hole in the top stave opposite the ‘ foots,’ and about half way between the two heads through which hole the sampling iron should be driven in by a ham¬ mer or mallet if necessary, till it strikes the bottom stave; and that after giving the iron two or more turns it should be withdrawn and the whole of the sugar so brought out should be thoroughly mixed together to form the sample by the whole or part of which the dutv is to be assessed. J “To effect this mode of sampling, the cask should be partially turned over so that the sampling iron may penetrate the cask obliquely as otherwise it mil be impossible to draw out any sugar. This mode of sampling however, will not be applicable to vacuumpan crystalized sugars, which must be sampled as it present by driving the sampling iron from head to head; as in sampling Muscovado sugar in the^abwe ZTZeJut T U ^ iUClUded iU tke Sample; no discretion in assess¬ ing the duty should be exercised on account of the larger quantity of • foot ’ No 31 1869.’’’ SVChasGubaand dadoes, generally contain. G. O. Consumers in this country do not use raw imported sugars grading 27 No. 10 tol3D. S. David A. Wells should know better when he says they do; neither will they use raw imported sugars of a grade below No. 10 D. S., if allowed to buy it, which it has been impossible for them to do for many years, because every pound, so to speak, of raw sugars imported of those grades is refined before consumers can obtain it, and the Shipping interests aDd carrying trade of this country will not be endangered in the matter of sugar cargoes, the number of which will steadily increase as consumption increases under any tariff; man’s luxury and necessity will take care of that. Congress can simplify the machinery by adopting one line for two classifications of sugars, in place of six, for levying duty; by so doing Congress will not injure legitimate industrial or trade interests one iota, but will remove innumerable facilities for practising frauds, and re move temptations from officials without whose aid, connivance, and toleration, the successful practice of revenue frauds would be next to impossible; apd will also so far strengthen the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury as to enable him to collect the full revenue from sugar, and readily discover, convict, and punish defrauders who now pursue nefarious practices almost beyond his reach or that of law ( and find encouragement and profit in it. For purposes of revenue two cents per lb. duty on all grades of im¬ ported raw sugars up to No. 16 D. S., and four cents per lb. duty on all grades above No. 16 D. S., with six cents per gailon duty on Molasses, would produce from the present average consumption, more nett reve¬ nue than is now collected from sugars and molasses. Even at 2 cents per lb. on all grades, the gross revenue from imported sugars would now amount to nearly $32,000,000. The following exhibit on this topic, is compiled from official records in the Bureau of Statistics and deduc¬ tions therefrom for the fiscal years 1876-7: Sugar Consumed. Declared Value. 1876....1,561,880,545 lbs. $63,860,713 1877.1,455,387,854 lbs. 71,849,089 Annual average 2 years consumed 1,508,634,199 lbs.; $35,981,207. Melada Consumed. Declared Value. 1876 . 96,751,914 lbs. $3,151,183 1877 .;. 49,650,354 lbs. 1,923,427 Annual average 2 years consumed 73,201,134 lbs.; $1,372,149. Molasses Consumed. Declared Value. 1876 . 39,213,804 gals. $8,712 115 1877 . 29,000,397 gals. 7,335,194 Annual average 2 years consumed 34,107,100 gals.; $2,130,091. 1876 _Drawback paid on refined sugar exported. 1877 _Drawback paid on refined sugar exported. 2,253,959 Annual average 2 years’ drawback refunded from duty.... 2,433,742 Duty Paid. $37,625,064 34,337,350 average duty Duty Paid. $1,813,354 930,944 average duty Duty Paid. $2,447,658 1,812,525 average duty 28 The average annual consumption of imported raw Sugar, Melada, and Molasses, and duty paid for the years 1876-77 (consumption, duty, and drawback, being complete and correctly adjusted), was, therefore, as follows, under the present tariff: Average Consumed, Imported Dry Sugars. 1,508,634,199 lbs. Duty.... $35,981,207 Total Average Sugar Dry and Wet. 1,581,835,333 lbs. Total Average Consumption. 1,581,835,333 lbs. Total Average Duties. $37,353,356 Average Consumed, Melada and Wet Sugars. 73,201,134 lbs. $1,372,149 Total Average Duty on Sugars. $37,353,356 Total Average Duties Paid. $37,353,356 Nett Average Duties. $34,919,614 Average Consumed, Molasses. 34,107,100 gals. $2,130,' 91 Average per lb. Duty Received. c.2.3613 Total Average Drawback Paid. $2,433,742 Actual present Rate, per lb. c.2.207 It is readily proved by facts and figures exhibited properly, that with but a small per cent, of sugar imports above No. 16 D. S., two (2) cents per lb. dutyjon all imported sugars up to No. 16 D. S., and four (4) cents per lb. duty on all sugars above No. 16 D. S. will increase the present revenue from sugars, because it can be fully collected. Al¬ though annual importations vary according to the demands of con¬ sumption, the average annual consumption will inevitably increase, and ihus further increase the revenue from sugar. Further analysis at this writing does'not seem required to prove that 2 cents per lb. to 16 D. S., 4 cents par lb. above 16 D S. on sugars, and 6 cents per gallon on molasses, fully collected, would yield mi re revenue tluvn now from sugar, and yet reduce the present rate of duty, which is not now fully collected, and cannot be under the present tariff. The amount of drawback refunded on refined exports wholly the product of imported sugars that have paid duty, must always be de¬ ducted. If no grades of sugar above No. 16 should be imported, the rev. nue at 2 ceDts per lb. is tax enough upon this article of food, and to protect its culture in this country; it is to be hoped That sugars im¬ ported from, Hawaii now^ree, will be made to pay duty like all other imported sugars. Reform is generally understood to mean, “Amendment of what is defective , vicious , cotmpt , or depraved;" let the Secretary of the Treasury personally cause the accumulative convicting evidences of Customs’ Revenue frauds, unwhipped by justice, to be exhumed from the pigeon holes” in the “bureaus,” over which the secretary has the honor to preside as Executive Chief, and from the pockets of subordinate officers having charge of Treasury Department archives, and from the invoice and file rooms of Custom Houses at Boston New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia and elsewhere ; and flank all public enemies who boldly rob the revenue and people, then cry 29 aloud for justice. Let them have speedy justice, aud thus relieve the Nation and the Executive of au incubus and shame. Further than that, to make assurance doubly sure and ate? the Govern, ment, let Congress address themselves to the same task of resurrecting honesty among the men they put in office by their laws and influence, as well asamoug those who find official places. To aid these public interests ef¬ fectually, the writer will, if duly authorized , indicate distinctly Official s and otherpersons , documents and papers, unfolding evidence ad infini- um ; the drafts and records of his past six years of official and private investigation of crooked Customs Revenue business, foreign Consign¬ ment Agencies, Undervaluations, Re-samplings, Re-appraisements, Re funds, and Revenue Robbe.ies, have not been bagged by sharp subor¬ dinate officials by any means. Congress should meet out speedy justice too, and aid executive authority, by cutting off facilities for fraud; and simplify a tariff that encourages the nefarious practices of unscrupulous men who build up Cen tral Monopolies upon ruins of honest Merchants, and fatten upon the destruction of American Agricultural and Manufacturing Industries, and interests more numerous far than those connected with Sugar Re¬ fining, with Capital accumulated by Robbing the Revenue and People in defiance of law. Sugar frauds are but the leading items in the great Catalogue of frauds upon our Revenue and struggling In¬ dustries. Compounding with sugar frauds on A r o. 13 D. S. duty per lb. cents 2.40, exclusive of Melada, is well suited to check enquiry and bolster sophis¬ tics. The present average duty on sugar, exclusive of Melada and not above No. 13 D. S. (three grades), is per lb. cents 2.50. Sugar would soon again be entered as Melada , and that would lead to more “ Commis¬ sions," and loose meanderings by Special Agents to learn “what constitutes Melada.” Elastic sugar, now termed “ Melada," had better be boiled a little longer in the country where it was born, and thus rise to sugar grade and rank as such for duty, or be further watered and rank with syrups and molasses. Nondescripts should find no favors when fixing rates of duty; there is already too much of this “ what is it :} business being done at Custom Houses, with all imported dutiable merchandise; it always cheats the public revenue by loss of duty and paying cost of enquiry; obstructs the wheels of commerce and custom business, and injures honest merchants, only to fatten official Moiety-hunters and other public parasites. Then what about the “ sampling” deviltries (described herein) now practiced, by which far more than by coloring, the average grade of sugars consumed not above No. 13 D. S. have been made to appear below No. 10 D. S. for duty; while facts, invoices, claims for drawback, un¬ impeachable expert testimony, and recorded evidence of many refiners, proclaim in unison that the average grades of Sugars used for refining in the past three years . was above No. 10 D. S., inconsistent estimates and 30 statements conflicting with this, do not bear the test of clear analysis , no matter who has uttered them. No. 16 D. S. provides a natural and equitable turning point for duty grading , which No. 13 D. S. can never do. , . Under the present tariff, the stimulus given to the foreign produc¬ tion of “Stuff” for theU. S. only, has overstocked the importers and re- 1 finers of this country, with the lowest grades of raw sugars, which they cannot consume as fast as it arrives. The cry is still they come; no other country will buy this low grade “ Stuff;” it cannot he profit¬ ably refined without the addition of much better sugar; poor Sugars below No.7 D. S. cannot even, if admitted free of duty, compete with good refining sugars as to product, cheapness, and profit, unless adul¬ terants are used (see page 9); in short, having been tempted too far by avarice, Sugar Monopolists have contracted for the production of foreign “Stuff” called Sugar, too rapidly; their trouble now is too much low grade elephant,— and time is wanted to finish out a losing speculation intended to cheat the revenue and people to make it doubly profitable. These low grade gentlemen have called for what they do not want they clamor now for justice; the public want justice; the Government and Revenue need justice; our Agricultural and Manufacturing indus¬ tries all look for justice; every Importer and Refiner is entitled to jus¬ tice; honest Officials ask for justice; and Revenue Robbers who adul¬ terate the sugar consumers eat, should henceforth be whipped and held in check by justice. Let public interests and every citizen have ample and equal justice in future legislative tcii iff changes, that honest men may thrive by honest means , along with all these public interests, when equity and justice resume the reign, and exercise authority for their protection. Adopt the following Sugar Tariff, guard the sampling and grading for duty properly, and sugar frauds will cease to find encouragement; consumers, industries, and revenue will rapidly profit by being rid of present tariff c implications, and broad facilities for practising frauds: On Tank Bottoms, Syrup of Sugar Cane Juice, Melada, Concen¬ trated Melada and Concentrated Molasses, and on Sugar not above No. 16 D. S. in color, 2c. per lb. On all Sugar above No. 16 D. S in color, and on all Refined Sugar loaf, cut loaf lumps, Crushed, Powdered, Granulated, and soft white or yellow, known as Coffee-Sugars, 4c. per lb. Molasses 6c per gallon. II. A. BROWN, Ex-Special Treasury Agent U. S. Saxonville, Mass., U. S. A.