SUGAR DUTIES.
To THE EDITOR OF TIlE "SPECTATOR."
SIR,-Mr. Martineau, who I believe to be a sugar refiner, and therefore not quite disinterested on the question of the duties, has had the privilege of a short space in your last Saturday's paper for the expression of his opinions. May I request a similar favour for mine, those of a consumer and consumer's representative only ?
The duty cannot be repealed; the present duties will hardly be adhered to. I hope they will not be merely modified ; I hope a uniform duty may be adopted.
Mr. Martineau asserts that the duty now varies with the quality. The Committee of the House of Commons in their second resolution state, "That it is not possible to charge sugars with duties varying exactly with the quality or value." How is the attempt made "aimed at?" To quote a recent opinion. Mr. Fryer, a refiner, in his evidence admits that he has bought sugar- it must have been coloured dark to come in at 13s. 10d. duty- containing 95 per cent of crystallizable saccharine matter. Mr. Fryer further admitted that he had purchased sugar which had paid duty at 12s. 8d. both at 27s. and 34s. 6d., such duty in one case being at the rate of 88 per cent., and in the other 58 per cent.
Mr. Martineau admits that sugar containing 50 per cent. of saccharine matter only-it might be lees even-must pay 12s. 8d. duty equally with one containing 90 per cent. ; nay, if it contain 95 per cent, and be dark in colour it cannot be charged more than 13s. 10d. ; while, if white and containing only 5 per cent. more, it is charged 4s. 6d. per cwt. extra. Mr. Martineau says, "The revenue officer does not assess sugar by colour alone ; he looks also to saccharine power, moisture, and condition-in fact, quality." Now as to the fact. On the worst, wet, dark, dirty sugars, he cannot charge less than 12s. 8d.; if drier, better in saccharine quality, but still dark, he cannot charge more than 12s. 8d. Further, as to the fact of charging by quality, let me quote an independent witness. In reply to a question (172) before the Committee Sir Thomas Freemantle, of the customs, says, "The judgment of the officers is now entirely by grain and colour"-not a word about saccharine. He further states, in reply to Question 6,547, "That the present scale was adopted for the purpose of introducing into this market a lower class of sugar than could otherwise have come if this principle had not been adopted :" (Question 178) "That it has a tendency to act as a protection for the production of low-class West India sugars, and that if it is a question of protection the consumers suffer;" (5,650) "The West India proprietors claim the protection ;" (5,690) "They cannot stand the competition of Cuba and slave- producing countries."
I maintain, then, that the officers do decide entirely by grain and
colour, apart from saccharine matter. In proof that clean light- coloured sugars, however poor they may be in saccharine matter, cannot be admitted at a profit, on acconnt of the higher duties, let me quote the evidence of a London refiner and staunch advocate of the present system of duties. Mr. Fairrie, in answer to Question 4,364, said "That if the 16s. duty was removed the fine sugars of the East Indies and the Mauritius, and the much more preferable white Havannah sugars, would come in and supersede the sugars of the refiners, because they are white and can be sent in any quantity ; (4,365) "That such sugars are generally as cheap as any other sugars, but are not used on account of the high duty." The low-class West Indian sugars are dark, may be, and are made,
strong in saccharine. The Mauritius, East Indian, and the Ila,vannah are light-coloured, and they are barred because they are so, and not for their saccharine qualities. Those which do come- not the best-are selected for their darker colour, to pass the 12s. 8d. and 13s. 10d. duties; 4-5ths of which two classes of sugar pass through the refiner's hands, because they are dirty in colour and unfit for consumption.
Mr. Martineau states the main argument against a uniform duty to be, that it is unfair the importer or consumer should pay the same duty on fine white sugars with 100 per cent. saccharine, and on low sugar or sugar and treacle, it may be, with only 30 or 50 per cent. I submit the present duties do not afford any approach to ad valorem; 95 per cent, of the imports are in sugars paying 12s. 8d. or 13s. 10d., an average of about 13s. 2d. The imports of refined sugars are only 3 per cent. 13s. 2d. may be reckoned as a uniform duty for 95 per cent, of imports charged practically on all values not white. The present duties are certainly oppressive to all low sugars, as charging the same rate on 50 per cent. or 95 per cent. of saccharine, the main value of the sugar. They are oppressive to the consumer by barring most effectually the import of the better sugars, which the refiners through Mr. Fairrie admit might be had in any quantity if the duties were lowered. A fixed duty _ would bring them to the consumers. The importers of low sugar are unevenly, unfairly taxed, without the benefit of being by improve- ment able to introduce clean sugars, owing to an excessive duty on purity and colour. The duties benefit only the refiners and those who grow for them, and are protective to them, and really for their benefit chiefly. A uniform duty not higher than 12s. 8d. would not injure the low sugar maker, he would not pay more than now. If h improved- cleaned his sugar at home, he would be benefited by every step in improvement he made, and would then supply the consumer independently of the refiner. The refiner seeks to prevent this very naturally, by trying to keep up a duty prohibiting practically the import of what he produces in his manu- factory. I seek to open the trade, not to force the poor man to have his sugar practically only through the refiner.
Mr. Martineau asserts that the present system admits on one basis sugar of every quality from every country, this, too, in the face of the facts stated by Mr. Fairrie, that Havannah sugars would come in and supersede the refiners', and that they are as cheap another sugars-that, in fact, they do not come because they are taxed too highly, and thus the consumer is taxed to protect the refiner.
We are asked to adhere to our present system, or an extension of it, on a similar unsound basis, because our consumption has in- creased rapidly-hardly so, judging by the past. We are told 361bs. per head is a large supply. We consumed 341bs. per head in 1854, when the duties were lower and sugar cheaper-We are not told how miserable a consumption is enjoyed by ten millions of our population, nor how small a one by the second ten millions, nor how large a one by the better classes. The consumption of the lower ten millions might easily be doubled and still be small. How is it to be done ? I think by a uniform duty to commence with. When we have a low duty it will most certainly be uniform.
I have no interest in sugar beyond what I have stated. I wish to protect the consumer and aid the revenue at the same time. As a member of the Select Committee in 1861, I came to the conclu- sion that a change from the variable to a uniform duty would be desirable, and moved a resolution to that effect. Further con- sideration has tended to confirm my opinion.-I remain, Sir, yours
Previous page
