Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1894-09-28
FRIDAY MORNING, SEPT. 20. 1894.
THE .FREE'' BREAKFAST TABLE.

THE "FREE'' BREAKFAST TABLE.
A good deal of Hon. Jacob Yost's ad-
dresses, we are informed by those who have
heard them, has been devoted to denuncia-
ton of the Democrats for abolishing ''free'
sugar. The people Of this country have
never yet had free sugar; the reiners of
the Sugar Trust have had it under the Nc
Kinley bill, but the people never have.
Raw sugar is not fit for use; it is only so
after being refined. The Mckinley bill
admitted raw sugar, which cannot be used,
free, but taxed refined sugar. which alone
the people have ON their tables. This en-
abled the Trust to make millions of money
out of the consumers. Ii there is any
doubt about this matter with anybody. we
call his attention to the following extract
from the sworn testimony given before the
Senate committee by MI. II. o. Havemey-
er, the President OF the Sugar Trust:
Senator Allen-Mr. Havemeyer, is it not
true that you control, that is the American
Sugar Refining Company controls, the prices
of sugar to all the Louisiana refineries?
Mr.. Havemeyer-Directly we do not; indi-
rectly we do.
Senator Through your organization
you do. If you fix the price at cents Tor
graduated throughout the United States
Others obtain it, don't they? And in that
way the price is controlled.
MI. Havemeyer- We undertake to control tie
1,r5ce Of refined sugar in tic United States. 7hGt
must be distinctly understood.
AcI In yavip of rnfinRI
sugar in the United States IS higher to the
American people in consequence OF the eXlS-
tence of the American Sugar Refining Com
pany than it would be if the different compan-
les in your organization were distinct and
independent companies?
Mr. Havemeyer-For short time it is.
Senator Allen-And what difference does
it make for the consumers in this country in
year in your Judgment?
MI Havemeyer-It has been in three years
past Mree-eigttts Of cent more on ecefy pound
they ate.
Senator Allen-And that would be about
how much in round numbers?
MI Havemeyer-It is a large sum in the
aggregate.
Senator Attention. many millions?
Mr. Havemeyer-I should say 1t aeas close to
s25, 900, 900 IN three gears.
Senator Allen-And you intend to keep
your hold on the American people as long as
you can?
Mr.. Havemeyer-As long as the Mehsaley
bill IS there, ace shall e-cdct that pratt.
Senator Allen-Is that the result Of the Nc
Kiniey bill?
Mr. Havemeyer-W We could not hare acEieoed
At c5ttout tie lNcKialey bill; but a great deal
OF the profit is due to these men in consequence
of combining the different interests and tie
skill and labor attending it,
The consumption OF sugar by the people
of this country is $500 ,000.00O pounds a
year. and of a cent more on each pound
of that. which was the increased cost made
by the Trust under the Mckinley bill, ac
cording to President Havemeyer, is
$l4.250, 600 tax paid to the Sugar Trust
every year. In the three years it amounts
80 81, $50 900 Which the people have paid
for the .'bIess ngs'' of the Mckinley bill in
the matter of sugar alone, and which Mr..
Hayemeyer admits his Trust ''could not
have achieved without the II cKinley bill.
In addition to this, the 'bounty" paid
directly out Of the I. S Treasury to the
sugar planters for growing sugar and sell
ing it to the Trust refiners has been $12,
O0G,0G0 year, which is $50, Geo. GOO more
This added to the $1i2. 100000 makes SIS,
750, 000 the consumers Of this country have
had to pay for free sugar for three years
under the Mckinley bill.
The bounty of $l2, 000. 000 paid to the
planters of Louisiana is one of the most
ineXcusable features of the Mckinley bill
d,eling with the sugar question. It did
not even go to the poor; it went to the rich
sugar planters, and WAS essentially class
legislation. Its result has been the most
natural thing in the world the Democratic
party having stopped the bounty, several
hundred of its wealthy recipients have de-
clared for the party that will restore it
the Republican. There is not single fed
ture of the treatment of sugar in the Nc
Kinley bill that is commendable, and the
features in which the Democratic bill re-
sembles it are far from praiseworthy. IT.
is the features in which it does not resenl-
bic it that Mr. Y ost attacks, aud he will
find it hard to get the tax payers Of the
country to agree with him.