The Hastings Standard Published Daily TUESDAY, SEPT. 14, 1897. THE SUGAR TAX.

Hastings Standard, Issue 425, 14 September 1897, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily

TUESDAY, SEPT. 14, 1897. THE SUGAR TAX.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrongs that need resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

There is a 'good deal of impudence compressed into the application made to the Government by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, Limited, asking that a special duty of £2 a ton in excess of that levied on eane sugar should be imposed on beet sugar, as has been done in Victoria for several years. The Sugar Company in this application practically admits that the European bounty-fed beet sugar is finding its way into the colonies, andthe beet sugar imperils the profits of the company. We fail to see why the people of New Zealand should be barred the privilege of having cheap sugar simply to afford big dividends to the shareholders of the Colonial Sugar Company. For years we .have been taxed through the Customs for the benefit of this joint stock concern, and we have not received any adequate return. Sugar refining is undertaken by this one company, and the numbsj? of hands employed is very limited. The company, however, has done well and its shareholders have enjoyed fat :li\idends for years past. If beet sugar wag produced in New Zealand there might be some reason for placing an embargo on the bounty-fed sugar of France and Germany, but notwithstanding that the Government have for years past endeavored to induce the farmers to grow sugar beet and have offered a substantial bonus for the manufacture of beet sugar, nothing has been done towards establishing the industry. Our agriculturalists evidently find they can do well enough without cultivating the sugar beet. The sole object of the company is to stifle competition ; it has enjoyed a monopoly of the New Zealand market for so long that it naturally resents the intrusion of outsiders. Sugar is an absolute necessity, and-if the taxpayers of France and Germany are foolish enough to spend mouey in providing us with cheap sugar surely we ought not to complain or seek to prevent such philanthropy. It seems singular, however, that the Colonial Sugar Company is unable to compete with German and French manufacturers. We have to remember that the beet sugar has to come all the way from Europe, it is subject to Customs duties, and it has to provide profit for two or three middlemen before it peaches the coosiuneri Not so with

the Colonial Sugar Company's product. The estates in Fiji, worked by coolies, provide the raw sugar, which enters the colony free, the refining process taking place in Auckland, where, as we have said, the number of hands employed is very limited. The reason advanced by the company for the imposition of the proposed tax is that every ton of beet sugar imported displaces as much local refined sugar, and as the expenditure in tbe colony for each ton refined is considerable a direct loss in money and the means of employment in New Zealand is the result. Very good argument for protectionists to swallow, but it is not good enough for the people. Surely no one will believe that the Sugar Company cares a dump about the amount of employment it affords, its chief business is to earn dividends for the shareholders, and to that end it has ever been anxious to spend as little and employ as few persons as possible, and make as large profits as it dare. This is the policy of every well managed company, and the Colonial Sugar Company is well managed to that extent. This appeal to the Government would seem to be an acknowledgment that all the other tactics used by the Company to maintain its monopoly have failed. Tl,e Company has tried other means of shutting out competition in New Zealand. The price of the Company's sugar has been lower here than in Australia, and this having failed to stop imports the Company issued a circular to merchants offering to allow the retailers ten shillings per ton discount on the annual purchases provided that such retailers dealt exclusively with the sugars of the Company. This bait has apparently failed, and now Parliament is to be asked to assist the Company to conserve its monopoly. The reference to the Victorian example is not convincing for us ; we prefer the New South Wales code. There, notwithstanding that sugar cane is grown and the company possesses refineries, the New South Wales Government abolished the sugar tax, recognising that it was not the duty of the G*overnment to tax-the whole community for the benefit of a section. New Zealand would do well to follow in the footsteps of New South Wales rather than of Victoria ; at any rate, in the matter of sugar we hope the Government will see the desirability of allowing the people to obtain sugar as cheaply as possible. The Colonial Sugar Refinery as an industry is not absolutely necessary ; we could get on very well without it, but sugar and cheap sugar we cannot do without. We hope the impudent request of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company will not be granted by Parliament.