The herald., 1894-10-28

1904 there would at this rate have been
paid by the government for the sugar
crop of that single year, If the bounty
were continued, S154. 1868, 227, and the
total for 10 years would amount TO more
than S6S3, 1000. Remember that not
one cent OF this enormous sum was de-
signed for the payment of government
debts, and all of it was intended to be
disbur sed in the interest OF single
claes. Nor could we expect an industry
thus heavily subs idized to yield up its
giant profits. To Withdraw $l54 1000, 600
from beet and cane growers in 1884
would be much more difficult than to
repeal the measure now.
But with reference to the sugar trust.
will show in moment that the Nc
Kinlev law was altogether more favor
able to the sugar trust than the present
statute.
have already referred to the sugar
section OF the Mckinley bill. which inn
posed duty OF hve-tenths OF cent
per pound upon all sugar above is Dutch
ptandard in color, with an additional
differential duty OF one-tenth in certain
cases already named. This legislation
was an immenee concession to the sugar
trust. Section 237 OF the Mckinley bill
enc bled that combination to import its
raw sugar for refining free, and then
gave a protective duty on the refined
product to guard it from competition.
And Mr.. Havemeyer declared on oa5h
during the recent investigation of con-
cress chat the profits of the trust under
the Mckinley legislation were vast. The
evidence Of that gentleman is as follows:
Mr.. Havemeyer-We undertook to
control the price of refined sugar in the
United States.
Senator Allen-And the price of re-
fined nugar in the United States is higher
to the American people in consequence
OF the existence OF the American Sugar
Refining company than it would be ii
the different companies of your organ
izstion were distinct and independent
companies?
Mr.. Havemeyer-For a short time
il is.
Senator Allen-And what difference
does it make for the consumers in this
country in year, in your judgment?
Mr.. Hsvemeyer-lt is o large sum in
tho aggregate.
Senator Allen--How many millions /?
Mr.. Havemeyer-I should say it was
close to $25. 600, 900.
Senator Allen-And you intend to
keep your hold upon the American peo-
pie as long as you can?
MIR. Havemsyer--Aa long as the Nc.
Kinley bill is shere We will exact that
profit.
Senator Allen-Ia that the result OF
the Mckinley bill?
Mr.. Havemsyer-We should not have
achieved it without the Mckinley bill.
And Mr.. John E. Searles, secretary OF
the great trust. was thus interrogated {:
Senator Gray-Qoss 40 per cent and
an eighth dIfferential give you the pro-
lection you desire?
Mr.. Searles-No, sir. We do not
think that one eighth is sufficient differ.
entisl to give us adequate protection.
Senator Allen-You may state briefly
what difference, in your judgment,
there is between the Mckinley act and
the pending act, as the senate proposes
to amend it, or has amended it, to the
American Sugar Renning company ;
which is the better act for you?
MIR. Searles-The Mckinley bill, by
far.
Senator Allen-How much?
Mr.. Senrles-I think one-hRlf; that is,
I think the protection in the margin TO
the refner in the proposed schedule is
not over one-half OF what it is in the
Mckinley bill.
1t may be added to this that Mr.. Ii.