SUGAR-BEET AND SUGAR BOUNTIES.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 2394, 12 November 1887, Page 1 (Supplement)

SUGAR-BEET AND SUGAR BOUNTIES.

Beet Versus Cane. The following interesting letter, which appeared in the Wellington Evening Press, has been forwarded to us by M. le Comte L. de.Jonflroy d’Ahhans, French Consul :

TO THE KPITOR OF THE EVF.SINC PRESS. Rdpuhliqiie Francaise, Wellington, le ‘2.sth Oetohre, JSS7. Consulat de France cn Nouvelle Eelande. No. - ( JG.

Silt, —I have just attentively read, with great interest, your yesterday’s leader entitled, “ Beggar My Neighbour,” and relating to the beet cultivation and the beet sugar industry in France and other continental countries. While I totally agree with yon with regard to the evil principles and final results of the sugar bounties system, as it is carried nil at present, I think it is my duty to oiler you some rectifications upon a few of your assertions concerning the part of responsibility ascrihahle to France in this matter.

First.—You arc mistaken when you sav that "the ii/ih'ni of homilies n'a* first i ' ntroilueeil in Frailer in or/hr fo raahh: that eminlry Id *apply herself u-ilh siiyar iiiihipcii'hnlly of G Jirilnni mill hrr culnnii x.” It is true tint the hrot sugar influ-try, horn in Germany, Ins boon introduced into Franco, Prussia and Russia, simultaneously, during the year 1811, as a consequence of the routinontal blockade. It is true that on the 29th of March, 1811, the Kmporor Xapolcon the First has ordered 75,000 acres of land to be sown with beet seeds, and £40,000 be distributed as encouragement amongst the beet growers. But it is no less true that from 1815 to to 1881 there was no bounty, no premium for exportation given to the French sugar-beet makers, in order to enable them to compete with cane sugar. Franco possesses many colonies producing large quantities of cane sugar: Guadeloupe, Martinique, Reunion, Gayane, etc., etc. These colonies have their elected representatives in our Parliament for protecting their special interests. From 1815 to 1881 the French legislation of Customs has been mostly in favour of French colonial cane sugar against indigenous beet-sugar. I acknowledge that, by our law of the '29 th July, 18S1, the respective situation of both industries has been deeply changed, to the great advantage of the latter. Why? The French Parliament has modified, in ISSI, the basis of the Excise duty on sugar, by uere*s'ity” Up to that time the internal duty was paid on every quantity of home manufactured sugar, this duty being equivalent to the import duty on colonial cane sugar. In case of export, the duty paid was nearly exactly refunded, without bounty or premium. Unfortunately, the fiscal legislation adopted, since the year 1840, by our neighbour—the Gorman Zoltverein, afterwards the German Empire had finally given such advantages to the German beet-sugar makers, that the change of our ov.u legislation was, for ns, commercially speaking, a question of life or death. In Germany, indeed, the internal duty was paid—not on every quantity of manufactured beet-sugar, as in France—hut on the raw material only, the charge being about one shilling per hundred kilogrammes (3201b?) of beet to he pressed. For exported' German sugar the duty was refunded—not according to the exact tax prepaid on beet—hut on a certain percentage of sugar, legally fixed, which the beet-root were supposed to yield. Allow me, Sir, to explain to you, in a few words, for the benefit of your readers, the general scheme of the sugar bounties, created by the German Zollverein, and necessarily followed, though reluctantly, by France and others. Suppose a German sugar maker bringing into his factory 1,000,000 (one million) kilogrammes of beet-root. He had to prepay an Excise duty amounting (one shilling per 100 kilos) to 10.000 marks (£500). Tfiis 1,000,000 kilos of beet were loyally estimated, in regard to export, as yielding (say at S per cent, of saccharine matter) SO tons of sugar. But, by improvement of Ilia cultivation and of his machinery, this clever German sugar maker obtains now a yield of 12 per cent, of sugar, say 120 tons instead of SO. Suppose he exports the lot. What is the result? The internal duty he lias prepaid on 1,000,009 kilos of hoot (£SOO- - refunded to him hy his Government at the rate of 1,500,000 kilos of licet reprol seating 120 tons of sugar at S per cent (£740) say, in this instance, a bounty of about £2 2s per ton of exported sugar. Now, what has the French legislator of 1884 done ? He has given to the French sngannaker. to enable him to compete with the Germans (not with the cane) sugarmakora, the option, either to pay the excise duty on manufactured sugar, as previously, save a deduction of S per cent., or to pay it on the raw material, as in Germany, the legal percentage of saccharine matter taxable being lU tons of sugar per hundred tons of beet. This legal percentage is yearly increased so that after five or six years, the actual bounties, progresaingly decreasing, will be practically abolished. I think, sir, you are now acknowledging the fact that France ha* not hern the Jir.il la infroilmr the netinilli/ e.eisliay homily system, but has only made it provisional as a measure of retaliation.

Second.—Your sad description of the situation of the French agriculture in the beet producing and sugar manufacturing countries does not seem to me to he wholly accurate. Our soil is not at all exhausted by an enormous production of beet, because we have everywhere a three years’ or five years' rotation of crops. Besides, by the cultivation of beet root, onr farmers obtain a larger yield of wheat and other cereals, save a great deal of expenses in cattle feeding, dairy farm, etc., etc. On the other hand, the general situation of the French sugar factories is good, except for the small ones who are obliged to consolidate for existence. The dividends average 11) per cent. I know of some instances where the shareholders have got sixty-five per cent, in IBSG. No failures of large factories have been reported for the last eighteen months. In my opinion, without bounties the beet sugar industry in France would be, now as previously, very remunerative, provided that our neighbours be on the same footing. Third.—As regards the compared cost of the production of sugar from beet and from cane, you assert that this cost is two or throe times greater for the former than for the latter. That was true some years ago for the manufacture, hut not for the cultivation of beef. But now, with labor-saving implements, improved machinery, new chemical discoveries, the cost is nearly identical, and, in some instances, without taking the bounties into account, at the advantage of beet.

Fourth.—ls the beet suerar incomparably inferior to the cane sugar? Of course, generally. But many French and German factorios, and that at Alvarado, California, with improved refining means make, from beet, sugar which cannot be distinguished in any way. as to appearance, colour, sweetening power, metallisation, etc., etc., from the best cane sugar by the most skilled analyst. Of course, it is a little dearer dot tbau the average cane sugar obtaiuable. To bring this long letter to a close, I allude with great pleasure to the words you have quoted from M r Lance, M.H.K. It is perfectly true that in some places—in Normandy, Picardie, Flaudre

and elsewhere—farmers clear as much as £SO an acre per annum from previously unproductive land; that villages have reared themselves into wealthy towns in a few years through the development of the beet alone. Why? Because tbe I.eet is not only useful as a sugar prodti- ins matter, the accessory profits derived from it, tile improvement of land, being far more important in France, Germany, Russia, and other*, than th- sugar itself, for many cultivations, many industries, and for the general welfare of those conntries.—l have the honour to be .Sir, yo ir obedient servant, Comte L. of. Jorminv n Annas.*.