Table II.
| Year. | Cane. | Beet. | Total. | Per cent. Beet. |
Average price per cwt. | |
| s. | d. | |||||
| 1840 | 1,100,000 | 50,000 | 1,150,000 | 4.35 | 48 | 0 |
| 1850 | 1,200,000 | 200,000 | 1,400,000 | 14.29 | 40 | 0 |
| 1860 | 1,510,000 | 389,000 | 1,899,000 | 20.43 | 35 | 0 |
| 1870 | 1,585,000 | 831,000 | 2,416,000 | 34.40 | 32 | 0 |
| 1871–1872 | 1,599,000 | 1,020,000 | 2,619,000 | 38.95 | 24 | 9 |
| 1872–1873 | 1,793,000 | 1,210,000 | 3,003,000 | 40.29 | 24 | 8 |
| 1873–1874 | 1,840,000 | 1,288,000 | 3,128,000 | 41.17 | 22 | 10 |
| 1874–1875 | 1,712,000 | 1,219,000 | 2,931,000 | 41.59 | 20 | 1 |
| 1875–1876 | 1,590,000 | 1,343,000 | 2,933,000 | 45.78 | 18 | 1 |
| 1876–1877 | 1,673,000 | 1,045,000 | 2,718,000 | 38.44 | 22 | 8 |
| 1877–1878 | 1,825,000 | 1,419,000 | 3,244,000 | 43.74 | 23 | 0 |
| 1878–1879 | 2,010,000 | 1,517,000 | 3,581,000 | 43.80 | 19 | 2 |
| 1879–1880 | 1,852,000 | 1,402,000 | 3,254,000 | 43.08 | 19 | 3 |
| 1880–1881 | 1,911,000 | 1,748,000 | 3,659,000 | 46.13 | 20 | 4 |
| 1881–1882 | 2,060,000 | 1,782,000 | 3,842,000 | 46.38 | 20 | 4 |
| 1882–1883 | 2,107,000 | 2,147,000 | 4,254,000 | 50.47 | 20 | 2 |
| 1883–1884 | 2,323,000 | 2,361,000 | 4,684,000 | 50.40 | 16 | 8 |
| 1884–1885 | 2,351,000 | 2,545,000 | 4,896,000 | 51.98 | 12 | 4 |
| 1885–1886 | 2,339,000 | 2,223,000 | 4,562,000 | 48.72 | 13 | 1 |
| 1886–1887 | 2,345,000 | 2,783,000 | 5,078,000 | 53.82 | 11 | 9 |
| 1887–1888 | 2,465,000 | 2,451,000 | 4,916,000 | 49.85 | 12 | 9 |
| 1888–1889 | 2,263,000 | 2,725,000 | 4,988,000 | 54.63 | 14 | 10 |
| 1889–1890 | 2,069,000 | 3,633,000 | 5,702,000 | 63.1 | 15 | 1 |
| 1890–1891 | 2,555,000 | 3,710,000 | 6,265,000 | 59.21 | 14 | 0 |
| 1891–1892 | 2,852,000 | 3,501,000 | 6,353,000 | 55.10 | 13 | 6 |
| 1892–1893 | 3,045,000 | 3,428,000 | 6,473,000 | 52.95 | 14 | 3 |
| 1893–1894 | 3,490,000 | 3,890,000 | 7,380,000 | 52.71 | 13 | 5 |
| 1894–1895 | 3,530,000 | 4,792,000 | 8,322,000 | 57.75 | 9 | 11 |
| 1895–1896 | 2,830,000 | 4,315,000 | 7,145,000 | 50.30 | 10 | 7 |
| 1896–1897 | 2,864,000 | 4,954,000 | 7,818,000 | 56.18 | 9 | 3 |
| 1897–1898 | 2,898,000 | 4,872,000 | 7,770,000 | 62.70 | 11 | 9 |
| 1898–1899 | 2,995,000 | 4,977,000 | 7,972,000 | 62.70 | 11 | 9 |
| 1899–1900 | 2,904,000 | 5,510,000 | 8,414,000 | 65.48 | 11 | 6 |
| 1900–1901 | 2,850,000 | 5,950,000 | 8,800,000 | 67.61 | 11 | 6 |
The quantities of cane sugar are based on the trade circulars of Messrs Willett & Gray of New York: those of beet sugar on the trade circulars of Messrs F. O. Licht of Magdeburg; and the prices are obtained from statements supplied by importers into the United States of the cost in foreign countries of the sugars which they import. The table has been adapted from the Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United States, January 1902, prepared in the Bureau of Statistics, Treasury Department, Washington Government Printing Office, 1902.
Table III.
| Year. | Raw Cane. | Raw Beet. | Refined Cane. | Refined Beet. | Total. | Consumption per head. | Total. | Price per cwt. | ||||
| Raw. | Refined. | Raw. | Refined. | |||||||||
| Tons. | Tons. | Tons. | Tons. | Tons. | lb | lb | lb | s. | d. | s. | d. | |
| 1870 | 556,000 | 84,000 | 3,000 | 82,000 | 725,000 | — | — | — | — | — | ||
| 1875 | 556,000 | 107,000 | 10,000 | 128,000 | 956,000 | 30.64 | 8.88 | 59.52 | 21 | 2 | 30 | 4 |
| 1880 | 590,000 | 260,000 | 11,000 | 140,000 | 1,001,000 | 51.09 | 9.46 | 60.55 | 21 | 9 | 29 | 5 |
| 1881 | 623,000 | 310,000 | 5,000 | 135,000 | 1,071,000 | 56.61 | 8.44 | 64.45 | 21 | 9 | 28 | 11 |
| 1882 | 726,000 | 265,000 | 6,000 | 133,000 | 1,130,000 | 58.78 | 8.38 | 67.16 | 21 | 1 | 28 | 8 |
| 1883 | 597,000 | 420,000 | 7,000 | 157,000 | 1,183,000 | 58.73 | 9.87 | 68.10 | 20 | 1 | 27 | 2 |
| 1884 | 582,000 | 399,000 | 53,000 | 160,000 | 1,194,000 | 55.57 | 12.58 | 68.15 | 15 | 6 | 28 | 21 |
| 1885 | 561,000 | 410,000 | 114,000 | 152,000 | 1,237,000 | 55.46 | 15.75 | 71.21 | 13 | 10 | 18 | 2 |
| 1886 | 468,000 | 339,000 | 71,000 | 247,000 | 1,125,000 | 44.61 | 18.75 | 63.36 | 13 | 0 | 16 | 8 |
| 1887 | 439,000 | 461,000 | 39,000 | 311,000 | 1,250,000 | 50.80 | 20.25 | 71.05 | 12 | 1 | 15 | 8 |
| 1888 | 574,000 | 319,000 | 2,000 | 342,000 | 1,237,000 | 47.97 | 19.99 | 67.96 | 13 | 5 | 17 | 3 |
| 1889 | 470,000 | 407,000 | 1,000 | 448,000 | 1,326,000 | 48.38 | 26.54 | 74.92 | 15 | 5 | 19 | 8 |
| 1890 | 283,000 | 503,000 | 15,000 | 484,000 | 1,285,000 | 42.87 | 28.22 | 71.09 | 12 | 6 | 16 | 4 |
| 1891 | 349,000 | 461,000 | 27,000 | 540,000 | 1,377,000 | 45.O8 | 32.94 | 78.02 | 12 | 10 | 16 | 6 |
| 1892 | 386,000 | 429,000 | 2,000 | 529,000 | 1,346,000 | 44.58 | 30.63 | 75.21 | 13 | 0 | 17 | 1 |
| 1893 | 363,000 | 434,000 | 2,000 | 575,000 | 1,379,000 | 42.41 | 33.17 | 75.53 | 14 | 2 | 13 | 4 |
| 1894 | 324,000 | 391,000 | 1,000 | 696,000 | 1,412,000 | 37.18 | 39.90 | 77.08 | 11 | 5 | 15 | 6 |
| 1895 | 388,000 | 463,000 | 1,000 | 706,000 | 1,558,000 | 45.28 | 40.10 | 85.38 | 9 | 7 | 13 | 4 |
| 1896 | 381,000 | 406,000 | 1,000 | 738,000 | 1,526,000 | 40.94 | 41.53 | 82.47 | 10 | 5 | 13 | 7 |
| 1897 | 242,000 | 434,000 | 1,000 | 793,000 | 1,469,000 | 34.52 | 43.92 | 73.44 | 9 | 0 | 12 | 3 |
| 1898 | 286,000 | 478,000 | 1,000 | 825,000 | 1,560,000 | 39.89 | 45.29 | 85.18 | 9 | 8 | 12 | 5 |
| 1899 | 186,000 | 469,000 | 1,000 | 889,000 | 1,545,000 | 35.63 | 48.68 | 84.31 | 10 | 6 | 12 | 7 |
| 1900 | 150,000 | 512,000 | 1,000 | 961,000 | 1,624,000 | 35.48 | 52.23 | 87.71 | 10 | 5 | 12 | 10 |
| 1901 | 178,472 | 526,451 | 1,000 | 1,079,553 | 1,785,476 | 36.80 | 56.40 | 93.20 | 10 | 6 | 12 | 0 |
of 1902 had thus been renewed in a modified form. Great Britain, instead of agreeing to prohibit the importation of bounty-fed sugar, was allowed to permit it under certain limits. Russia, which gave bounties, was to be allowed to send into European markets not more than 1,000,000 tons within the next five years, and Great Britain undertook to give certificates guaranteeing that sugar refined in the United Kingdom and exported had not been bounty-fed. The renewal of the convention was disapproved by certain Liberal politicians, who insisted that the price of sugar had been raised by the convention; and Sir Edward Grey said that the government had intended to denounce the convention, but other countries had urged that Great Britain had induced them to enter into it, and to alter their fiscal system for that purpose, and it would be unfair to upset the arrangement. Besides, denunciation would not have meant a return to prior conditions; for other-countries would have continued the convention, and probably with success, and would have proposed prohibitive or retaliatory duties in respect of British sugar, with bad results politically. Still the British government had been prepared to denounce the convention in view of the penal clause which had ensured the exclusion of bounty-fed sugar, either directly or through the imposition of an extra duty. But this had been removed, and it was now unreasonable to insist on denunciation. Russia would have made the same arrangement she had obtained had we seceded from the convention. She had formerly sent to England about 40,000 tons of sugar yearly; she might now send 200,000 tons. Was this limitation a reason for sacrificing the advantages we had gained? Under the original terms of the convention Great Britain might have been asked to close her ports to sugar proceeding from one country or another. This was now impossible.
