The many industries that make up the world of freight have undergone tremendous change over the past several decades. Each Friday FreightWaves will explore the archives of American Shipper’s nearly 70-year-old collection of shipping and maritime publications to showcase interesting freight stories of long ago.

The following are article excerpts from the March 1955 edition of the Jacksonville Seafarer magazine. David A. Howard, the founder of Howard Publications Inc., launched the publication in Jacksonville, Florida. Howard later established the statewide maritime and trade publication Florida Journal of Commerce in 1969. He and his son, Hayes H. Howard, went on to expand it nationally in 1974, rebranding it as American Shipper. FreightWaves acquired American Shipper in July 2019.

Click here to view the entire addition of the Jacksonville Seafarer – March 1955.

Free trade vs. protectionism: In defense of Cuba’s sugar quote

(The following article was prepared by the Chamber of Commerce of Cuba)

Several bills have been presented to the U. S. Congress proposing amendments to the existing Sugar Act promulgated in 1952 and applicable during four years, that is, from January 1, 1953 to December 31, 1956. The Act, hence, is in its third year of operation. Such bills proposed increases in the quotas allocated to continental cane and beet sugar producers and to Puerto Rico. They have caused justified alarm in all Cuban economic sectors, for whom the American sugar market is, literally, of vital importance.

The increases proposed by certain legislators are: 100,000 short tons for Florida and Louisiana cane areas; from 125,000 to 200,000 short tons for the beet areas, and 100,000 short tons for Puerto Rico. These increases add up to 325,000 and 400,000 tons, and under the operation of the present Sugar Act would have to be covered thus: 96%, or 312/384,000 tons, at the expense of Cuba’s present quota, and 4%, or 13/16,000 tons, at the expense of other foreign countries. In addition, proposals have been made to have 55% of future increases in U. S. consumption assigned to the domestic areas of Puerto Rico and Hawaii, also at the expense of the 96% of such increases that is now assigned to Cuba. If such proposals are written into the Sugar Act, Cuba’s present 96% participation in sugar consumption increases would be cut down to a mere 41%.

The effects of such reductions, not only on Cuba’s sugar industry, but also on her national income, on the living standards of the Cuban people and, in the final analysis, on Cuban-American trade, would be positively disastrous. Hence, every effort put forth to bring about an understanding of both countries’ interests in avoiding the cut in Cuba’s sugar quota and to have such understanding prevail over the private interests of small groups of producers is both plausible and necessary.

Importance and repercussions of the proposed cut

The reduction in Cuba’s sugar quota implicit in proposed increase to the continental areas and Puerto Rico, means decrease of from $33 to $40 million per year in Cuba’s sugar sales to the U.S., taking as a basis the net price of 5.2 cents per pound of raw sugar. This cut in sales will bring about contraction in Cuban national income ranging from $80 to $120 million.

Effect on Cuba’s purchases

The enormous importance of the Cuban market for American producers – and the extraordinary significance of sugar sales is a determining factor in Cuba’s purchases of American products –  were expressed by the Members of the House Agricultural Committee that visited our country in January of this year. The report by the Committee was rendered to Congress on its return to the United States. Said the Mission:

“Dollars obtained from our purchases of Cuban sugar make up the fund for Cuban purchases in the United States, which are too broad that they make that nation our sixth most important consuming market abroad, and shows a per capita consumption of American products that tops every other country in the world, except Canada.” 

Cuba returns dollar for dollar

It is an historically proven fact that Cuba returns to the United States the greater part of every dollar it receives from its sugar sales to that country – and in a few instances, more than a dollar through the purchase of products of U.S. agriculture and industry.

Historical figures of Cuban-American trade show that there is a direct, and increasingly closer relationship, between the purchases of Cuban sugar by the U. S. and the sales of American products to Cuba.

Such sales benefit thousands of farmers, manufacturers and workers in the U. S., located in each and every one of the States of the Union. Cuba’s purchases range from wheat flour, lard and rice, to motor cars and the fuel with which to run them, through television and radio sets, electric fans, washing machines, lamp bulbs, razor blades, heavy machinery and all its accessories, and tens of thousands of North American products.

Island’s cooperation in two World Wars

Last, but not least, there is another historical fact of enormous moral and material significance. We refer to the contributions which Cuba has made to the sugar supply of the United States and all of its Allies, at times when the very areas supplying that market and now asking for privileges at the expense of Cuba, fell down on the job of increasing their production, or actually decreased their output when it was most critically needed. To this production effort of Cuba, we must add that during both World Wars the Island sold its crops, in toto, and for several years, at sacrifice prices. It is hard to believe that the United States would assign to Cuba the role of supplier only in times of emergency, and then turn around and penalize her when things came back to normal.

Upholding Cuba’s sugar quota is in the mutual interest of Cuba and the U.S.

With such historical and economic facts before them, American legislators, government officials, industrialists, agriculturists and workers can understand that not only from the point of view of Cuba’s legitimate interest but also from the standpoint of the very best interest of the United Slates itself, the upholding of the Cuban sugar quota is of the utmost importance – a fundamental and decisive factor – in order to maintain high levels of trade with our country and protect a market whose inhabitants are the world’s number two consumers of American goods. And this becomes all the more significant when we consider that a contraction in our American sugar market and the consequent lack of dollar exchange, might force Cuba to implement a defensive policy of negotiating bilateral trade agreements with other countries, on a barter basis, or through soft currency arrangements, to the detriment of U. S. producers and exporters.

The many industries that make up the world of freight have undergone tremendous change over the past several decades. Each Friday FreightWaves will explore the archives of American Shipper’s nearly 70-year-old collection of shipping and maritime publications to showcase interesting freight stories of long ago.

The following are article excerpts from the March 1955 edition of the Jacksonville Seafarer magazine. David A. Howard, the founder of Howard Publications Inc., launched the publication in Jacksonville, Florida. Howard later established the statewide maritime and trade publication Florida Journal of Commerce in 1969. He and his son, Hayes H. Howard, went on to expand it nationally in 1974, rebranding it as American Shipper. FreightWaves acquired American Shipper in July 2019.

Click here to view the entire addition of the Jacksonville Seafarer – March 1955.

Free trade vs. protectionism: In defense of Cuba’s sugar quote

(The following article was prepared by the Chamber of Commerce of Cuba)

Several bills have been presented to the U. S. Congress proposing amendments to the existing Sugar Act promulgated in 1952 and applicable during four years, that is, from January 1, 1953 to December 31, 1956. The Act, hence, is in its third year of operation. Such bills proposed increases in the quotas allocated to continental cane and beet sugar producers and to Puerto Rico. They have caused justified alarm in all Cuban economic sectors, for whom the American sugar market is, literally, of vital importance.

The increases proposed by certain legislators are: 100,000 short tons for Florida and Louisiana cane areas; from 125,000 to 200,000 short tons for the beet areas, and 100,000 short tons for Puerto Rico. These increases add up to 325,000 and 400,000 tons, and under the operation of the present Sugar Act would have to be covered thus: 96%, or 312/384,000 tons, at the expense of Cuba’s present quota, and 4%, or 13/16,000 tons, at the expense of other foreign countries. In addition, proposals have been made to have 55% of future increases in U. S. consumption assigned to the domestic areas of Puerto Rico and Hawaii, also at the expense of the 96% of such increases that is now assigned to Cuba. If such proposals are written into the Sugar Act, Cuba’s present 96% participation in sugar consumption increases would be cut down to a mere 41%.

The effects of such reductions, not only on Cuba’s sugar industry, but also on her national income, on the living standards of the Cuban people and, in the final analysis, on Cuban-American trade, would be positively disastrous. Hence, every effort put forth to bring about an understanding of both countries’ interests in avoiding the cut in Cuba’s sugar quota and to have such understanding prevail over the private interests of small groups of producers is both plausible and necessary.

Importance and repercussions of the proposed cut

The reduction in Cuba’s sugar quota implicit in proposed increase to the continental areas and Puerto Rico, means decrease of from $33 to $40 million per year in Cuba’s sugar sales to the U.S., taking as a basis the net price of 5.2 cents per pound of raw sugar. This cut in sales will bring about contraction in Cuban national income ranging from $80 to $120 million.

Effect on Cuba’s purchases

The enormous importance of the Cuban market for American producers – and the extraordinary significance of sugar sales is a determining factor in Cuba’s purchases of American products –  were expressed by the Members of the House Agricultural Committee that visited our country in January of this year. The report by the Committee was rendered to Congress on its return to the United States. Said the Mission:

“Dollars obtained from our purchases of Cuban sugar make up the fund for Cuban purchases in the United States, which are too broad that they make that nation our sixth most important consuming market abroad, and shows a per capita consumption of American products that tops every other country in the world, except Canada.” 

Cuba returns dollar for dollar

It is an historically proven fact that Cuba returns to the United States the greater part of every dollar it receives from its sugar sales to that country – and in a few instances, more than a dollar through the purchase of products of U.S. agriculture and industry.

Historical figures of Cuban-American trade show that there is a direct, and increasingly closer relationship, between the purchases of Cuban sugar by the U. S. and the sales of American products to Cuba.

Such sales benefit thousands of farmers, manufacturers and workers in the U. S., located in each and every one of the States of the Union. Cuba’s purchases range from wheat flour, lard and rice, to motor cars and the fuel with which to run them, through television and radio sets, electric fans, washing machines, lamp bulbs, razor blades, heavy machinery and all its accessories, and tens of thousands of North American products.

Island’s cooperation in two World Wars

Last, but not least, there is another historical fact of enormous moral and material significance. We refer to the contributions which Cuba has made to the sugar supply of the United States and all of its Allies, at times when the very areas supplying that market and now asking for privileges at the expense of Cuba, fell down on the job of increasing their production, or actually decreased their output when it was most critically needed. To this production effort of Cuba, we must add that during both World Wars the Island sold its crops, in toto, and for several years, at sacrifice prices. It is hard to believe that the United States would assign to Cuba the role of supplier only in times of emergency, and then turn around and penalize her when things came back to normal.

Upholding Cuba’s sugar quota is in the mutual interest of Cuba and the U.S.

With such historical and economic facts before them, American legislators, government officials, industrialists, agriculturists and workers can understand that not only from the point of view of Cuba’s legitimate interest but also from the standpoint of the very best interest of the United Slates itself, the upholding of the Cuban sugar quota is of the utmost importance – a fundamental and decisive factor – in order to maintain high levels of trade with our country and protect a market whose inhabitants are the world’s number two consumers of American goods. And this becomes all the more significant when we consider that a contraction in our American sugar market and the consequent lack of dollar exchange, might force Cuba to implement a defensive policy of negotiating bilateral trade agreements with other countries, on a barter basis, or through soft currency arrangements, to the detriment of U. S. producers and exporters.