f H F 
 
 SUGaR TAPqFF 
 
 opeech of J as. A. Garfield 
 Feb. 26. 1879. 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 B 3 lib M27 
 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL F^OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL INCREASr T-o . °"^- "^"^ PENALTY 
 
 DAY InD TO J°oo° "L^^^^ °^ ^"^ '^°URTH 
 OVERDUE. °'' ^"^ SEVENTH DAY 
 
 LD 21-100ot-8,'34 
 
IiI:I-7ard :n 
 
 SXJaA.K T.A.niFir. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. JAMES A. GARFIELD, 
 
 OF OHIO, 
 
 DELIVERED GJ THE 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 Wednesday, February 26, 1879. 
 
 WASHINGTON. 
 
 1879. 
 
5> ^oa Q^ 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HOX. JAMES A. GARFIELD. 
 
 The House having under consideration the bill (H. E. IS"o. 6134) to regulate the 
 duties on sugar — " 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD said : 
 
 Mr. Speaker: I regret that I am not feeling well enough to address 
 the House on this subject to uiy own satisfaction. By the kindness 
 of my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, [Mr. Tucker,] 
 who paired with me, I left the House yesterday in consequence of 
 feeling quite ill, and I should not be here to-dav were it not that I 
 am charged with the duty of presenting the bill approved by the 
 minority of the committee ; but I will try to state the case if I can 
 have the forbearance and attention of the House. 
 
 It must be manifest to every one that any considerable change in 
 our tanif laws at the present session is impossible ; and no chancre 
 whatever should be undertaken at this late day unless demanded by 
 the most imperative necessity. That such a necessity exists for the 
 modification of the tariff on sugar will appear further on. 
 
 The pending bill, like all bills which relate to customs duties should 
 be considered in its relation to four great interests: the revenues 
 home industries, foreign trade, and the interests of consumers. First' 
 as a source of revenue for the support of the Government, we are re- 
 ceiving about $37,000,000 in coin per annum from duties on su-ar in 
 Its various forms. That is about one-sixth of all our revenues°from 
 all sources. The effect of any measure upon so largo a part of the 
 revenue is vital to our finances and to the fiscal credit of the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Second, it affects two great producing industries of our people. The 
 first of these is the growth of cane and the production of cane sugar 
 to foster which Congress has for a long time levied a discriminating 
 duty, though only a single State is pursuing the industry. Notwith- 
 standing the fact that sugar is one of the necessities of the daily life 
 of our people, they have consented to pay a tax which, under existing 
 laws, averages about 62i per cent, ad valorem upon all the sugar they 
 -consume. This burden is borne cheerfuUy for the purpose of protect- 
 
 47b4<^h 
 
ing and promotiug a great home industry in one of our Southern States. 
 A second important industry which has grown up in connection with 
 the sugar trade and has developed to great magnitude in recent years 
 is the business of refining. It is one of the interesting evidences of the 
 progress of civilization that people are using less and less of the raw 
 sugars of commerce and more and more of refined sugars. And this 
 change of habit is not merely a refinement of luxury but is demanded 
 by a better knowledge of the lawsof health. In a recent investigation 
 made by the Analytical Sanitary Commission of England appointed 
 to examine the various kinds of food, Dr. Hassell, the chairman, re- 
 ported among other things the following : 
 
 "We feel, however reluctantly, that we have come to the conclusion that the sugars 
 of commerce are in general in a state wholly unfit for consumption. 
 
 That is the latest voice of science in England on the subject of un- 
 refined sugar. And if gentlemen will turn to The Popular Science 
 Monthly, of New York, for February, 1879, they will find a very in- 
 teresting scientific discussion of the various insects that infest food, 
 and on images 508 and 509 occurs a passage relating to sugars, which I 
 quote : 
 
 The sugar-mite, T. sacchari, [a magnified wood-cut of which accompanies the 
 passage,] is most commonly found in brown sugar. It is large enough to be seen 
 with the naked eye, and sometimes appears as white specks in the sugar. It may 
 be detected by dissolving two or three spoonfuls of sugar in warm water and 
 allowing the solution to stand for an hour or so. At the end of the time theacari 
 will be found floating on the surface, adhering to the sides of the glass, and lying 
 mixed with the grit and dirt that always accumulate at the bottom. In ten grains of 
 sugar as many as Ave hundred mites have been found, which is at the rate of three 
 hundred and fifty thousand to the pound. Those who are engaged in handling 
 raw sugars are subject to an eruption known as " grocers' itch," which is doubt- 
 less to be traced to the preseuce of these mites. Thej' are almost invariably pres- 
 ent in unrefined sugars, and may be seen in all stages of growth and in every con- 
 dition, alive and dead, entire or broken in fragments. Kefined sugars are free 
 from them. This is in part due, perhaps, to the crystals being so hard as to resist 
 their jaws, but principally to the absence of albumen, for without nitrogenous mat- 
 ter they cannot live. 
 
 * * * * * * * 
 
 These degraded and disgusting forms are not proper food-stuifs, nor is their con- 
 sumption unavoidable. Pure articles, in <an undamaged condition, do not contain 
 them ; and their presence in numbers in any article of food is proof that it is unfit 
 for human use and should be rejected. 
 
 This scientific testimony is corroborated by the experience of alL 
 persons who manipulate raw sugars, while no such effects result from 
 the handling of refined sugars. For these reasons the consumption, 
 of raw sugars in this and in all other civilized countries has rapidly 
 fallen oti". Ahd so, although in former years a large quantity of what 
 is known as grocers' sugars went directly into consumption without 
 going through the process of refining, the amount of sngars of that. 
 class now used has been reduced to almost nothing. 
 
5 
 
 To exhibit somethiug of the maguitude of this industry, I state a 
 few facta : omitting maple, sorghum, and beet sugar, we consumed 
 last year in round numbers one billion seven hundred million pounds 
 of cane sugar. Of this amount we produced in our own country two 
 hundred million pounds ; the remaining one billion live hundred mill- 
 ions were imported. Reduce the whole to tons, the people of the 
 United States consumed seven hundred and forty thousand tons of 
 cane sugar last year, or an average of about forty-tive pounds to each 
 inhabitant. Of all this vast amount of sugar not 2 per cent, was con- 
 sumed in the raw or unrefined state. Nearly all of it passed through 
 some process of refining to fit it for the use of our people. 
 
 From this it will be seen that in addition to the business of cane- 
 planting and sugar-making there has grown up in this country a sec- 
 ond industry of sugar refining, the importance of which may be shown 
 by a few additional facts. There are twenty-five thousand laborers 
 in the United States to-day emi»loyed in the business of refining sugar 
 and fitting it for use, in addition to those employed by the sugar pro- 
 ducers. In this work they employ coopers, blacksmiths, mechanics, 
 machinists, and other classes of laborers. They consume thirty mill- 
 ions of pounds of bone-dust, eighteen thousand kegs of nails, thirty 
 thousand car-loads of staves, and three hundred thousand tons of 
 coal. 
 
 In this statement I do not take into account the refining done by 
 Louisiana planters in preparing their products for market, though a 
 large majority of the sugar growers have connected with their mills 
 some form of refining. I have stated these facts to show the extent 
 of the two home industries, which we should keep in view in any 
 legislation on the subject. 
 
 The third interest to be considered is our foreign commerce, of 
 which only a word needs to be said. We are compelled to buy abroad 
 about 85 per cent, of all our sugar. We buy it from tropical coun- ' 
 tries with which, on every ground of public policy, we ought to main- 
 tain healthy and active relations of trade. If we are able, by our 
 superior skill, to refine their low-grade sugars more cheaply than our 
 neighbors and send them back with the added value of American 
 labor, it will strengthen us industrially and commercially ; and the 
 fact that our refining interest has grown to such perfection that we 
 have been able to sell in a single year to tropical countries about 
 seventy million pounds of refined sugar, is a gratifying one on every 
 account. No change should be made in the law which will injure our 
 commenial prospedts in this direction. 
 
 The fourth interest, one of vital importance, is that of the consum- 
 ers of sugar. They are not a class ; they are the whole population of 
 the United States ; and there must be reasons of controlling strength 
 thatwill justify any considerable taxon an article of food of universal 
 
6 
 
 consumption and of such prime necessity as sugar. That reason ha& 
 been found partly iu the necessity for revenue, but chiefly in the 
 purpose of enabling our people to become self-supporting, and as far 
 as possible to produce their own sugars, that they may not be depend- 
 ent upon foreign countries for so important an article of food. Iu 
 short, the chief reason for the tax is that American labor may find 
 employment in producing and preparing food for American tables. 
 
 The duty on sugar has been levied in various forms. Up to 1846 
 sugars were classified into raw and refined sugar, with a low rate on 
 the raw and a higher rate on the refined. But as the processes of 
 manufacture and refining have been improved, additional grades have- 
 been added to the law from time to time to meet the new conditions. 
 It was found in 1870 that the lower grades embraced so wide a range 
 of products that a uniform tax upon one whole class was neither 
 equitable nor just ; and hence the law was so amended as to increase 
 the number of classes and make the tax ad valorem in principle but 
 specific in form ; that is, sugar in all its forms was graded into seven 
 classes, arranged in the order of its value, and a specific duty was 
 levied upon each class, the lowest rate being imposed upon the sugars 
 of lowest value and a higher rate upon each successive class. The 
 tax thus adjusted has been an efficient means of raising revenue. 
 I have already shown that it produces more than $37,000,000 a year. 
 That it has afi'orded sufficient protection to the producers and refiners 
 of sugar will not be denied. The theory of protection may perhaps 
 be thus summarized : on any imported article which comes in com- 
 petition with an American product the rate of tax should be propor- 
 tionate to the amount of human labor which has been expended upon, 
 it at the time of imjjortation. That which represents the least labor 
 should bear the least burden of tax ; that which represents the most 
 should bear the greatest. This principle has generally prevailed iu 
 all our tariff' laws relating to sugar. 
 
 As the law now stands, the duty is adjusted by classifying all sugars 
 into scA'en grades. First, the lowest, crudest, and cheapest product, 
 which comes in liipiid form and is known as melada. On that we levy 
 a specific duty equal to aboiit 40 per cent, ad ralorcm. The next grade ■ 
 of sugar is represented by the specimen I hold in my hand, and is 
 known in the trade and to our law as Dutch standard No. 7. Until 
 a recent period all sugar was manufactured by the simple process of 
 boiling down the cane-juice and clarifying the product by means of 
 clay. By that process the purity and strength and hence the value 
 of all crystallized sugar were exhibited by its color. Here, for exam- 
 ple, [holding up a specimen,] is a specimen of the lowest and crudest 
 forms of crystallized sugar. Gentlemen will notice its dark color. It 
 is known and graded as Dutch standard No. 7, and forms the second 
 class in our present law. Here [holding uji another specimen] i» 
 
7 . 
 
 another specimen advanced higher, embodying more human labor, 
 having less impurity in it, being advanced to a condition fit for 
 use. It is known as Dutch standard No. 20. Ranging between these 
 two specimens are several grades, the seven classes of the present 
 law being — 
 
 First, melada, as I have described it. 
 
 Second, No. 7 and under. 
 
 Third, all above No. 7 and not above No. 10. 
 
 Fourth, all above No. 10 and not above No. 13. 
 
 Fifth, all above No. 13 and not above No. 16. 
 
 Sixth, all above No. 16 and not above No. 20, (a specimen of which 
 last I have just exhibited.) 
 
 Seventh, all above No. 20. 
 
 The theory of the law is that these various grades of sugar repre- 
 sent a scale of increasing value, an increasing amount of labor ; and 
 therefore the higher the grade the heavier the duty. For ease of 
 comparison I reduce the specific rates to • ad raZorcwi, and show the 
 status of the existing law. On the lowest form of sugar, melada, the 
 rate is about 40 per cent, ad valorem. On the next grade, which in- 
 cludes all not above the Dutch standard No. 7, it is about 4-5 per cent. ; 
 on the next grade, including No. 10, it is about 4(H per cent. ; on sugars 
 between No. 10 and No. 13 it is 49^ per cent ; between 13 and 16, 684 
 per cent, and -so on, the rate increasing according to the value of the 
 sugar and the amount of the labor expended upon it. This method 
 of taxation seems to be fair and just; for if the principle of protec- 
 tion be applied to sugar at all, it ought to be applied on some plan of 
 grad nation which imposes the heaviest burden upon those grades which 
 involve the most foreign labor and which are the most valuable. 
 
 I believe the correctness of the principle of the present law is not 
 called in question anywhere. Although the aggregate rate of duty 
 is high, consumers are not complaining; for the sugar used by our 
 people is cheaper to-day than it has been during any previous period 
 of our history. In 1869 the average price in the United States of all 
 •grades of sugar was 15 cents a pouud. In 1878 the average price was 
 9 cents a pouud. A dollar will to-day buy more sweetening than it 
 would have bought at auy previous period in our history. A day's 
 work even, will buy more sweetening to-day than it would have bought 
 ten years ago. Therefore the consumers of sugar of this country are not 
 complaining that the rate of tax is too high. The planters of Lou- 
 isiana are not complaining that they are not sulficiently protected by 
 the present law ; for they get an average protection of 62^ per cent., 
 far greater than we get on most of our northern products. 
 
 Who, then, is complaining, if neither the producers of sugar nor the 
 consumers complain ? The Treasury alone is now making complaint. 
 The Secretary tells lis that new processes of manufacture have en- 
 
8 
 
 abled foreign producers to produce sugar of as high a grade of sweet- 
 ness and as pure as this specimen [showing a light colored sugar] but 
 which has a color as low as this, [showing a dark sugar,] and there- 
 fore, as the letter of the law fixes the rate of duty on the basis of color 
 alone, high-grade sugars in sweetness and value, but of low color, are 
 brought in at a rate below the intent of the law, and so the revenue 
 is defrauded. Two recent processes of manufacture known as the 
 centrifugal process and the vacuum-pan process, have so changed 
 the character of the product, especially in Cuba, that high-priced 
 sugar comes in graded at low rates ; and of that the Secretary of the 
 Treasury complains. He says, and so say his experts, that we are 
 probably losing from four to five million dollars a year, in conse- 
 quence of this undervaluation of sugar. 
 
 To meet this defect in the law should be the sole object of the pres- 
 ent bill. To whom should we look for the suggestion of a practical 
 and efiScient remedy of the only evil complained of ? First of all, we 
 should look to the officer who is charged by law with the duty of col- 
 lecting the revenue. And he, the Secretary of the Treasury, has pro- 
 posed a remedy. He does not ask us to change the rate of duty. He 
 does not ask us to raise or reduce the present rate. All he does ask is 
 that we give him the power to prevent undervaluations which he can- 
 not prevent as the law now stands. He does not complain that the 
 color test has been proved altogether worthless. It is still as valuable 
 as ever for all sugars of the higher grade ; but the two new processes 
 of which I have spoken have enabled manufacturers to evade the 
 spirit of the law in the lower grades, especially in grades below No. 10, 
 Dutch standard ; and he declares that if we will authorize him to 
 apply other tests which will correct the undervaluation in these lower 
 grades, he can collect the revenue fairly and fully, according to the 
 original intent of the law, without any change of the rates or change 
 of the grades already established. In a word, he asks us to give him 
 the requisite authority and means for enforcing the present law accord- 
 ing to its real intent and purpose. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have stated all the trouble 
 complained of in the present law. We are not asked to legislate either 
 for the consumer or the producer, for Louisiana or for New York, or for 
 the great West. We are asked to legislate to protect the Treasury 
 against loss of revenue by undervaluation. That is all. And what 
 is the remedy proposed ? The Secretary of the Treasury proposes 
 what I now otfer on behalf of the minority of the Committee of Ways 
 and Means as a substitute for the pending bill, and I ask the Clerk 
 to read it. 
 The Clerk read as follows : 
 
 Be it enacted, c6c., That from and after the ila\' of , 1-79, in the classi- 
 
 flcation of iiniiorted sugars for assessment of duty, an^' sugar which shall not he 
 
9 
 
 above No. 10, Dutch standard in color, which shall contain more than !t2 per cent, 
 of crystallizable sugar shall pay the rate of duty now chargeable to sugar above No. 
 10, and not above No. 13, Dutch standard in color, and the per centum of crystalliz- 
 able sugar shall be ascertained by the polariscope or such other meaus as may be 
 prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. The Secretary simply asks us in that amendment 
 to give him the power to superadd to the color test the use of the 
 polariscope or auy other tests which he n^ay find effective in making 
 crystallizable strength and color correspond. That is all. 
 
 If there had been no virtual evasion of the color test, there would 
 have been no need of any change in the law ; and it is only to meet 
 that evasion that he asks authority to do what he cannot now do, add 
 to the color test the polariscope test or any other scientific test he may 
 choose. 
 
 Mr. ROBBINS. Is it proposed to apply the polariscope test to all 
 sugars below No. 10 in every instance ? 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. It is, wherever found necessary. 
 
 Mr. ROBBINS. How will the officers of the Government know the 
 need of applying the test ? 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. I will tell the gentleman. Whenever an im- 
 ported sugar bears evidence on its face that the color and sweetness 
 are in harmony the color test will remain undisturbed ; but when for 
 any reason the inspectors of the revenue or other officers of the Gov- 
 ernment have reason to believe that the sugar is of a higher grade 
 than its color would indicate, or that its color is below what the law 
 intended, they will apply the polariscope and correct the valuation. 
 
 The bill I offer is the simplest and plainest method that can be had 
 to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to enforce existing law. 
 
 Mr. ROBBINS. Who is to determine whether the sugar looks upon 
 its face as sweet as it is represented to be ? 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. The Secretary of the Treasury, by his regulations 
 and orders to his officers appointed for that purpose. What the gen- 
 tleman says would be equally applicable to his own bill. 
 
 The gentleman himself in his own bill recognizes the Dutch stand- 
 ards of color, and how is he going to determine whether any given 
 sugar is above or below No. 13 Dutch standard ? How does he draw 
 the line in his own bill, and who is to determine whether the sugar 
 is above or below that standard ? 
 
 Mr. ROBBINS. In reference to No. 7, who is to determine whether 
 the sugar imported is higher or lower than No. 7 ? 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. I answered the gentleman before ; the executive 
 officers of the Government charged with the office of collecting these 
 duties under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury and under 
 the rules and regulations which he may make. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, whatever difficulties the gentleman from North 
 Carolina [Mr. Robbixs] may have or I may have or you may have, 
 
10 
 
 it must be taken for granted that the officers who will discharge this 
 duty are intelligent and vigilant. 
 
 The present Secretary of the Treasury tells us that with the simple 
 measure I have offered he can administer the law and collect the rev- 
 enue. That being so, I do not think it quite becomes us to say that 
 he cannot do it, and deny him the provision that he asks for, and all 
 he asks for, to enable him ,to put five millions more revenue into the 
 Treasury without increasing the rate of taxation. 
 
 For one, I am unwilling to take upon my shoulders the responsibil- 
 ity of refusing the Secretary the means he asks for to enable him to 
 collect the revenue, and, instead, give him a remedy of my own de- 
 vising. 
 
 Suppose he fails ; he can very well say that Congress refused the 
 instrument he wanted and gave him one of their own devising. In 
 that case the responsibility will fall not upon him but upon Con- 
 gress for forcing upon him a plan he did not ask for or recommend. 
 
 I say, therefore, on general principles, that when an executive offi- 
 cer whom we have a right to trust for his intelligence, skill, and 
 character as a public man, comes to us and asks for a certain definite^ 
 plain provision of law, we ought to have very strong reasons of our 
 own why we do not grant it, especially when he asks us not to change 
 the rate of duty, not to tear down the structure of the law, but sim- 
 ply to give him the means to enforce it. This is the ground on which^ 
 in the first place, I plant my argument for the amendment I have 
 offered as against the new and larger and, as I think, the very peril- 
 ous scheme proposed by the majority of the Committee of Ways and 
 Means. 
 
 Let us next consider the scheme which they have offered. I want 
 gentlemen to understand that of the seven lower grades of sugar a» 
 they now stand in the law, each paying a different rate of duty 
 and a rate increasing as the sugar advances in quality, by the bill of 
 the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Robbins] it is proposed to- 
 consolidate into one the first four of those grades, that is, melada 
 and three lowest grades of sugar, and to provide that all four grades 
 shall be put on a dead level of equality and shall pay a duty of 2.40 
 cents per pound. This is a radical and sweeping change in the pres- 
 ent law, for it covers about 9P per cent, of all sugars imported. 
 
 To show how important to the revenue those four lower grades 
 are, I state a fact furnished by the Bureau of Statistics. It is this, 
 that out of $:37,000,000 of revenue received last year from sugar, ^ 
 $;54,9.')5,000, almost 90 per cent., was received from sugar of the three 
 lower grades. I cannot emphasize this fact too strongly in consider- 
 ing the radical change proposed by the Robbins bill. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him a 
 moment ? 
 
11 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. How much of that duty cornea from grades under 
 No. 7 ? 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. I have not the figures before me. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. Well, I have. 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. Of the grades under No. 10, Dutch standard, there 
 were received $35,000,000 out of |.37,000,000 ; and of the grades under 
 No. 7 I think about $14,000,000 or $15,000,000. But from No. 10 down 
 we get thirty-five millions of the thirty-seven millions collected on 
 sugar. What effect this change will have on the revenues it is diffi- 
 cult to say ; but I have no doubt it will wholly prevent the importa- 
 tion of the lowest grades, will increase the price of sugar to the con- 
 sumer and probably decrease the revenue. At all events it is a dan- 
 gerous experiment to make in view of our present financial necessities. 
 
 But I desire to show how it will operate as a protective measure. 
 I have already shown that by our present law sugar pays a duty of 
 40 per cent., 45 per cent., 46 per cent., 49 per cent., 68 per cent., &c., 
 increasing in rate from the lower to the higher grades. Now note the 
 effect of consolidating the lower grades, as proposed in the Robbins 
 bill, and fixing the single rate of 2.40 cents per pound. Melada, which 
 is the lowest grade and now pays about 40 per cent, will then pay 80 per 
 cent, ad V(tloirm. The second grade, (that is, sugar not above No. 7,) 
 which now pays 45 per cent., will then pay 08^ per cent, ad valorem. 
 The next grade will pay 60 percent., the next higher 53 percent., the 
 next higher 45 per cent., and the next 42 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 In short, the Robbins bill is an inverted cone ; the lowest grade of 
 sugar must bear the highest rate of duty, and the highest grade will 
 bear the lowest rate. In other words, the less labor there is in the 
 imported product, the heavier the rate of tax upon it ; and the more 
 labor, foreign labor remember, there is in it, the least burden of tax 
 will be put upon it. 
 
 The fundamental doctrine of protection is completely overturned 
 and reversed by this bill. Yet it is by no raeaus a free-trade bill. It 
 so happens that on the grades upon which the extreme high rate of 
 duty is imposed, our friends from Louisiana will receive a very con- 
 siderably larger protective duty than the present law gives them. 
 Hence the favor with which this proposition is received by gentle- 
 men from that portion of the country. 
 
 Mr. KELLEY. I desire to say that there is such a noise coming 
 from the galleries that we sitting here by the gentleman from Ohio 
 [Mr. Garfield] cannot hear what he is saying. 
 
 The SPEAKER 2J?'o tempore. Unless silence is observed in the gal- 
 leries they will be cleared. 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. Now, Mr. Speaker, I object to this bill, first, be- 
 cause it violates the fundamental principles of a just and equitable 
 
12 
 
 taxation; and I object to it iu the second place because it puts a 
 prohibitory duty upon the low-grade sugars that are refined by Ameri- 
 can skill, and become the cheap sugar iu common use among our 
 people. It injures one portion of our industrial interests and gives 
 an unreasonable protection to another. It violates the canons of free 
 trade on the one hand, and of protection on the other. It destroys 
 absolutely the business of refining the cheap low-grade sugars, and 
 will increase the cost of sugars most in use. 
 
 Let me illustrate still further. How is it that this day while I 
 speak to you sugar is cheaper in the United States than it has ever 
 been before ? Because we have built up in this country a great in- 
 dustry, by which we are eclipsing the world as refiners of sugar. 
 When the French manufacturers were at Philadelphia at our Cen- 
 tennial, they were amazed to see that our sugar products there 
 rivaled the best products of the Old World. They did not under- 
 stand how it had been done. But it was the result of the same skill 
 that has enabled America to surpass so many other countries in the 
 recent exposition at Paris and to carry off more medals in proportion 
 to their exhibitors than any other five countries of the globe. 
 
 We were so successful in the refining of sugar that two years ago we 
 were exporting seventy million pounds of our refined product. It was 
 becoming and it will become, if we are allowed to carry on this indus- 
 try, a great element in our export trade. We are trading with Cuba 
 and South America ; we are compelled to depend largely upon the trop- 
 ics for our raw material. Is it not wise for us to be able to send back 
 the refined product in exchange ? Or shall we so legislate as to give 
 an undue protection to our Louisiana planters, and drive the refining 
 business out of the United States, allowiug Cuba, England, and other 
 countries to do our refining for us ? Refined sugar we must have. 
 The day is gone by when our people will eat the animals which abound 
 in the raw unmanufactured sugars of the world. I say, therefore, 
 that this bill as drawn sins against the consumer and against the 
 refining interest and unreasonably protects the producing interest of 
 the country. 
 
 Let me illustrate a little further. In the Phillipine Islands there 
 is a class of people who have not enough intelligence and resources 
 to take the first simple step toward claiifying sugar. They have no 
 limestone on their islands ; they cannot even furnish the lime to drop 
 into the sugar vats and clarify the product just a little. But they 
 take the juice of the cane aud boil it down in the crudest, rudest, 
 simplest way, by labor the cheapest and least skillful ; and when they 
 have reduced it to a black cheap form of crystallized sugar, the dirt- 
 iest yet known, they put it up in sacks of one hundred and fifty 
 poniids each, so that a man Ciui carry it on his back down to the land- 
 ing to be shipped away. Our people are buying largely of that ^osv 
 
13 
 
 grade of sugar from the Phillipine Islands. We are buying it also 
 from other countries where the production is of a low grade. This 
 sugar we bring here and by our skill and labor make it into a cheap 
 clean sugar for table use. Shall we now by law impose a prohibitory- 
 duty on all that trade and industry, an 80 per cent, rate or a 65 per cent, 
 rate, keeping it all out and bringing in only the sugar that has been 
 advanced by the higher and more intelligent processes of our nearer 
 neighbors, thus cutting oft' the whole business of refining these low- 
 grade sugars ? I hope not. 
 
 I know there is some controversy among the refiners themselves. 
 Some of them — indeed, quite a number of most estimable gentle- 
 men — say, " Let this bill pass and we can do a better refining busi- 
 ness than is done now ; we can refine the high-grade sugars." Now, 
 I am glad to have those gentlemen work the higher grades of sugar 
 and make a success of them ; but I see no reason why our refineries 
 should not also take the lowest grades of sugar, that which has the 
 least value, the least labor in it, and bring it up by our American 
 labor to a cheap, useful, merchantable form ; and therefore I am un- 
 willing, for the sake of helping one class of refiners, to destroy another, 
 I do not believe it is necessary to destroy either. 
 
 I regret that the refiners do not unite on some common ground on 
 which all could have had a fair chance. But there seems to have 
 been an internecine war among them ; and with such a war I have no 
 sympathy. 
 
 Having now stated my objections in brief to the bill of the gentle- 
 man from North Carolina, [Mr. Robbins,] I turn to answer his criti- 
 cisms of the measure I have proposed, which is the bill of the Treas- 
 ury Department. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. RoB- 
 Bixs] says that the polariscope is an unsatisfactory instrument, and 
 that, however perfect it might be, there is serious difficulty in samp- 
 ling the sugars to be tested. I admit that there is trouble about 
 sampling. Suppose a hogshead of sugar is allowed to remain lying 
 on its side for a month, and the sampler bores a hole in the hogshead 
 and draws out a sample close, to the bottom. He gets a wet, black, 
 coarse portion of the sugar. On the other hand, if he draws his 
 sample from the top, he gets a dry, lighter-colored, better grade of 
 sugar. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. How much foreign labor is there in the settlings of 
 that sugar ? [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. There certainly is a good deal^f dirt in it. [Laugh- 
 ter.] As a matter of course if that sampler has been bought by some 
 importer he may take the samples out of the bottom of the cask only, 
 which will not represent the character of the whole. But whether the 
 system proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. Rob- 
 bins,] or that of the Treasury Department prevails, we must leave 
 
14 
 
 the details of carrying it out to the Secretary of the Treasury. Under 
 the regulations of the Treasury Department an official is not per- 
 mitted to sample a hogshead* of sugar in one spot only. He samples 
 above and below and at the center ; and the diftereut samples being 
 mixed into one, make a pretty fair average sample of the cask ; and 
 then taking every tenth cask of the cargo, a pretty fair set of sam- 
 ples of the whole cargo is obtained. But the trouble about sampling, 
 inheres in any graded system, and no one proposes to abolish all the 
 grades. 
 
 But the gentleman thinks the polariscope test is good for nothing. 
 I have some evidence on that subject. 
 
 In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the polariscope, being a scientific 
 instrument, (into the details of which I will not go as my learned 
 colleague on the committee did,) the Secretary of the Treasury sent 
 it about two years ago to the American Academy of Sciences, of 
 which Professor Henry was president, with the request that it be ex- 
 amined and a report made as to the advisability of its use by the 
 Government in determining the value of sugars for revenue purposes. 
 After a thorough examination, and with the assistance of persons 
 well qualified to judge, Professor Henry reported to the Secretary of 
 the Treasury on the 5th day of February, 1878, as follows : 
 
 After due deliberation on the subject, the following are our final conclusions : 
 
 That the quantity of cryatallizable sugar in imported raw sugars should be esti- 
 mated by the polarimeter, which is an entirely trustworthy instrument, and olo 
 the use of which can readily be taught to any intelligent person of ordinary edu- 
 cation. 
 
 If the polarimeter should be adopted as the measure of the value of sugar, a 
 «npply of these instruments should be obtained from Germany, and their use 
 taught to the appraisers by a person thoroughly acquainted with the theory aLd 
 practice of the instrument. The accuracy of the instruments themselves should 
 also be tested, and the appraisers from time to time be examined as to their skill 
 in the use of the instrument. 
 
 This is the opinion of a scientific man, the most eminent and trust- 
 worthy of our countrymen ; and when he says that a layman, a man 
 -without special skill, can be taught to use this instrument accurately, 
 and that it is " entirely trustworthy," I have not quite the courage to 
 say it is not so. 
 
 But that is not all. I turn from the test of science to the test of 
 practice. I have before me a memorial containing the resolutions 
 adopted by the importers, refiners, and dealers in sugar in Boston, 
 signed by 66 firms rM)reseuting, I am told, every refiner in that city. 
 They speak for themselves : 
 
 Boston, January 30, 1879. 
 
 At an adjourned meeting of the importers, refiners, and dealers in sugar, held 
 this day, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted : 
 
 Resolved, That the duties on sugar should be assessed by a graduated scale of 
 specific rates, adjusted as nearly as possible to the ad valorem principle, and that 
 
15 
 
 this can be done by the uae of the polariscope better thau in any other way. Its 
 general use in buying and selling in all civilized countries proves that it is less 
 complicated and more reliable than any other method of determining the actual 
 Talue of sugar. 
 
 Resolved, That duties ought to be so regulated and assessed as to encourage the 
 largest possible supplies of sugar from all places of production, and not in any way 
 made so as to favor one place more than another ; and that the amount of revenue 
 now, derived from the lower grades of sugar cannot be increased without injustice 
 and injury to the consumers, as it is uo^ too high in proportion to high gi-ades. 
 
 JOHN W. CANDLER, Chairman. 
 
 "WM. H. GREELEY, Secretary. 
 
 "We, the undersigned importers, refiners, and dealers in sugar, approve of the 
 above resolutions. 
 
 (Signed by sixty-six firms.) 
 
 The testimoDy of these geutlemen is that the gradiug of sugars can 
 be better eliected by the polariscope than iu any other way. Its gen- 
 eral use in buying and selling sugar strongly attests its practicability. 
 
 A prominent gentleman from Boston, who is one of these signers of 
 this memorial, stated to the Committee of Ways and Means that he 
 bought twenty-six large cargoes of sugar during the last season from 
 Cuba on telegraphic orders and by the polariscope test. It was done 
 in this way : he cabled to the manufacturer in Cuba, " Send me so 
 many hogsheads of sugar testing 92"^ or 94^ polariscope test," and the 
 sugars came. 
 
 The Cuban seller applied the polariscope test when he shipped them, 
 and the Boston buyer applied the polariscope test when they were 
 received. The record of those twenty-six cargoes shows that if the 
 duty had been assessed by the test of the polariscope there would 
 have been but .$125 difference in half a million dollars duty between 
 the Cuban test and the Boston test. There were variations in the 
 tests of single cargoes, but the whole shipment showed if we had fol- 
 lowed the Cuban test alone in levying the duties the account would 
 have varied but .$125 from the amount based on the Boston test, the 
 parties having adverse interests — one the buyer, the other the seller. 
 Stronger proof of the practicability of the polariscope test of sugar 
 can hardly be conceived. 
 
 Mr. MILLS. I understand my friend from Ohio and the signers of 
 that resolution to state that the polariscope is the full test of the 
 value of sugar. 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. Yes, of the crystallizable strength, and therefore 
 of the value of sugar. 
 
 Mr. MILLS. Then why not lay the duty on thd value of sugar and 
 let that be reached by the polariscope or any other means the Sec- 
 retary of the Treasury may adopt ? 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. The Boston dealers asl^d the committee to adopt 
 precisely the measure which my friend suggests, and that will be 
 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Banks.] They 
 
16 
 
 proposed that the duties on sugar should be laid on the percentage of 
 saccharine strength ; for instance, 1 per cent, of saccharine strength 
 shoiild pay so much, and 2 per cent, twice 'as much, and so on through 
 all the grades, to he tested by the polariscope. 
 
 Mr. MILLS. Then the polariscope tests the value of sugar ? 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. Yes ; and theoretically they are right. But, as 
 a matter of practice, I think, and this was the opinion of most of the 
 Committee of Ways and Means, that the Boston plan,would make the 
 sugar taritf too complicated, for there would be one cargo having a 
 small per cent, less strength than another, a different rate of duty. 
 The rates would be too numerous and complicated. We therefore pre- 
 ferred to retain the existing seven grades and apply the polariscope 
 to them. 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. The gentleman from Ohio has spoken of the char- 
 acter of the polariscope as a test, and says it is a test of the quantity 
 of saccharine matter. Is it not rather a test of the crystallizable 
 quality of the sugar? 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. My colleague is right ; I should have used the 
 word crystallizable. That is the language of my amendment. 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. Is it not true that we were told in the committee, 
 so far from its being a test of the quantity of sacchariue matter, that 
 the sugar not crystallizable had so much saccharine matter that it 
 "was used by all the refiners ? 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. I thank my colleague ; for I was about to omit 
 what, if left out, would have made my statement incomplete. The 
 chief element of value in sugar is sugar crystals; but there is also 
 another element, which is uncrystallizable, but still sweet, known as 
 glucose, which will be found in the most perfect sugar of commerce. 
 Glucose is not deleterious, is sweetening, and is found in all sugar. 
 The chief element, and that with which we are mainly concerned, is 
 of course the crystal, the crystallized sugar. Therefore in our bill 
 we apply our test to the crystallizable strength of sugar, and that the 
 polariscope detects. That is what we are legislating about ; not about 
 glucose and other elements that enter into sugar. The main product 
 is crystallized sugar, and that is perfectly tested by the polariscope. 
 
 I do not say that the polariscope is a perfect test in every respect ; 
 but I say in the present stage of scientific knowledge it is the best 
 test we know. It is approved by the highest science and by the 
 practical experience of our foremost dealers in sugar. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. I desire to ask the gentleman a question. 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. Very well. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. I ask the gentleman if the polariscope gives any 
 correct test of melada, the lowest grade ? 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. It do'es— of its crystallizable strength. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. But if it is not crystallized ? 
 
17 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. The melada question is not important, for it pays 
 a specitic dutj' as the lav\ now stands ; but should crystallizable sugar 
 be brought in mixed with melada it would be tested by the polari- 
 scope. I believe I have now gone over the main points in this dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 Mr. EOBBINS. I desire to ask the gentleman a question. 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. Very well. 
 
 Mr. ROBBINS. There are no other means but the polariscope which 
 can be applied as a percentage test, except chemical analysis, are 
 there? 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. Not that I know of. I ought to have added that 
 "we do not confine the Secretary to the polariscope alone. We author- 
 ize him to employ the polariscope or such other test as he may find 
 -necessary to determine the real crystallizable strength of sugar. No 
 ■doubt he will use the polariscope ordinarily ; but if there is any doubt 
 of its accuracy in any important case he can employ a chemist and 
 make a chemical analysis. 
 
 Mr. ROBBINS. One word more. The chemical analysis test is too 
 costly for general use, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. Oh, yes; it would be too cumbrous and costly to 
 be used ordinarily. But it can always be used to verify the polari- 
 scope test in any important case. 
 
 Mr. ROBBINS. But who is to know that any correction is needed? 
 
 Mr. GARFIELD. My friend in that question has taken up the 
 conflict of ages. Who shall do anything except the men appointed 
 to carry out the law ? Who shall find out any blunder or correct any 
 wrong unless you appoint somebody to do it? Congress, I take it, 
 can hardly determine the sweetness or strength of sugar or the amount 
 of glucose in it unless we appoint an agent. The Treasury cannot do 
 it except by its agents. In any system there will be the trouble sug- 
 gested by the gentleman from North Carolina. 
 
 In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do not want Congress to tinker with 
 the tariff at this time. That was attempted last year; and in the 
 remarks I made on that occasion I denounced the sugar clause of the 
 bill then introduced, because while there was a reduction of the rate 
 on most northern interests, the rate on sugar was increased consider- 
 ably, even up to 70 per cent. I say, therefore, let us not undertake to 
 change tlie tariff rates in this closing week of the session. But when 
 the Administration tells us that four or five millions of revenue are 
 being lost, let us provide the means they want to protect the Gov- 
 ernment against undervaluation and loss. 
 
 O 
 
 2 GAR 
 
r 
 
 476428 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY