The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-03-03
THE SUGAR TRUST.
The New York Legislature Investf'
eating H.

hers of the committee are Senators
Frank B. Arnold (Chairman). Eugene
E. F. O'Connor, H. J. Coggeshall, John
L. Linson, Eugene S. Ives, George F.
Langtern anu Edward G. Walker, who
were all present. 1t was lively session,
and much important testimony was
elected, showing how the deal had been
made, to the detriment of the public.
Theodore E. and II. o. Havemeyer were
present, and were represented by John
Dospassos and John E. Parsons. The
committee was assisted by Colonel
George Bliss and General Roger a.
Pryor There was quite a number OF
spectators in the room. The trust had
special stenographers present.
Chairman Arnold opened the pro-
ceedings by reading the resolution call
ing the committee into existence and de-
lining its powers. eve propose this
afternoon" said the Chairman, ''to in
vestigate the Sugar Trust
Henry 0. Havemeyer was the first
witness. He stated that for thirty years
he has been engaged in the refinery
business. He had a refinery in Brook
Ign, and represented two corporations,
the Havemeyer Company and the De
Castro Company. The former has been
in existence for three months, and for
merly did business under the name of
Havemeyer & Elder. The De Castro
has been in existence for fifteen years.
Witness had been connected with it ten
years. Eight thousand barrels of sugar
per day was the capacity of the Have
meyer Company, and 5000 barrels of
the other. Their business consisted of
refining raw sugar. In October last an
arrangement was made between parties
interested in running sugar refneries in
the vicinity of New York. 1t was an ar
rangement by which the stockholders
of the several companies placed their
stock in the hands of several persons
as trustees. The members of the Board
of Trustees were given. He did not
know of the death of any company that
had come into the ''com bination" since
its foundation, at least in New York
State. Then he begged pardon, and
thought there was one stakeholder of
the North River Sugar Refinery had
'come in out of the rain.' The Chair
man further on compelled him to say
that he believed there were other COM
panies not situated in New York that
had not "come in out of the Storm The
L. II I
Boston, New Orleans and two in San
Francisco, and several here, which
latter were hardly recognized as ere
fneries." The Boston firm was the
| Revere. There were also the firms of
Harrison, Frazier & Co. and E. G..
Knight of Philadelphia. The capacity
of the Boston house was 900 barrels
day, the Philadelphia house 5 900 bar
rels, San Francisco firms 1000. He
figured up the total there that had sur
rendered at $4,000 barrels per day.
Mollers, Sierck & Co. had suspended for
repairs, and the North River Company
permanently. There was competition
natural mpetition-among the corpor-
atoms forming the board. It was not
the intention of the board to rule prices
or establish uniform price for the same
products, but simply to avoid the de-
preston consequent upon over produc
| ton. The members of the board under
bid each oth:r, but not to such disas-
trous extent. The board had never felt
that the price should be fixed at so
| much. 1t had "felt'' that the supply
should be limited
The Chairman of the committee in
quired as to how the competition of the
members benefited any of them indi-
vidually, if profits were pooled. The
witness admitted it did not it showed
better management. The refneries that
were well managed suffered for the bad
management of other refineries in the
board.
Other members of the committee fired
perplexing questions, and the witness
talked quite glibly in reply. He en-
deavored to show this ''union of re-
fineries, as he once went so far as to
term it, wGs really in the interest OF la
borer5, because when it was "felt'' to be
wise to limit production, only the smaller
refneries were closed and the larger
carried nearly their whole complement
of hands all winter through
On February 21st the investigation
was continued. Henry o. Havemeyer
was recalled, and refused to answer con-
corning what proportion of the outstand-
ing $45, 0OO, 900 of sugar-trust certificates
related to the refinery which was de-
stroyed by fire last year. He said that
he declined to answer, under instruction
from his counsel The trust has no