The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-10-10
Compilation Of Some Extremely In
teresting Data.
HISTORY OF THE GREAT COMBINE
Harper's Weekly Reviews the Evidence
That Has Accumulated Regarding the
Concern, And Draws Certain ConcIu-
sions-How Millions Are JuggIed With

"For a number of years I have made
I200 per cent. at least ON the amount OF
my investment" is said to have beer
l the assertion of Mr.. +. o. Matthies-
sen, one of the principal promoters Of
the Sugar Trust. Accepting this state
ment as correct, it is evident that
| sugar-refining was one of the most
| lucrative of all industries prior to 1887,
when the Sugar Trust was organized.
| The year 1886 was an exception to the
| general rule. Few refiners made any
| profit. The cause of this seeming fail
| ure might have been found in the
business foresight, genius, and con-
| certed working of certain sugar-refin-
| ing magnates (the Havemeyers and
Matthiessen), who wished to create a
trust composed of all the fraternity,
| and who therefore conducted CONNER
cial operations in such style as to re-
duce profits to a minimum, and thus
enforced recalcitrants to fall in with
their plans and purposes.
In the formation of the Sugar Trust
the F. o. Matthiessen & Wiechers
Sugar. Refining Company of Jersey
City, the De Castro & Donner, the
Havemeyer of Brooklyn, the Stand
ard and Bay State of Boston, the Con-
tinental, Forest City, st. Louis, Plant
ers', Louisiana, and North River Sug-
ar-Refning companies co-operated.
The establishment of Moller & Sierck
was purchased and closed. The firms
of Havemeyer & Elder, Dick & Meyer,
Oxnard Brothers & Co. also united
with the new organization, in connec-
ton with whose affairs the names of
F. o. Matthiessen, ii. o. Havemeyer,
John E. Searles, Julius A. Stursberg,
L
Thomas, John Jurgensen, Hector G.
Havemeyer, Charles II. Duff, Will
liam Dick, and others became more
or less prominent.
Control of the entire supply of raw
sugar, economy in manufacture, utili-
zation of the best processes of refin-
ing, and command of markets were
the objects held in view. If in COM
passing these ends competitors should
be forced to the wall, operatives
thrown out of employment, and the
people compelled to pay higher prices
than would obtain under the old
methods-"why, these are only un-
pleasant incidents of legally success
full business Selfishness is the pri-
NAL force in commercial pursuits.
The poor may object to growing poor
er; the rich to getting richer-never.
III USE OF mON1ES.
And so the Sugar Trust was organ
lied with a capital of $50, ,0OO, ,O0O-$25,-
900, 900 being in preferred and 5,000,-
900 in common stock. The plants
owned by the several members, in
Guiding one that afterward declined
were literally valued
at 80 per cent. of $4,000, 900, or $17,-
500, 900, and on this basis stock to the
amount of $40, 100000 was issued. The
S7,500,00 left in the treasury, rumor
says, was used in compromising the
suit of Mr.. Hentz for his commissions
and in the distribution of various boz
muses.. Funds for conducting the bus
ness in all the operated plants were
obtained through the issuance Of $1O,-
600, 600 of bonds. These, which take
precedence of the preferred stocl-, We're
accepted "a collateral security 10y lead
ing members of the Trust-individu-
ais lOaning money on them, as neces-
sity required. One trustee (Mr. +. q.
il said to have loaned
from one to two million dollars at a
time. Who the owners of these bonds
now are, or whether they are cxclu- |
sively the property of the Trust, and |
as such counted in its surplus, is not |
generally known, perhaps not known |
at all to outsiders. |
On the New York Stock Exchange |
the price of Sugar Trust certificates |
started at 40, and rose to 128 in 1889. |
From that altitude il dropped to 50 i'm |
January, 1890, and thence rose to 30 In |
the following month. Fluctuations 80 |
violent may be explained in part by |
the suit brought by Mr. Henry w. |
Gray, as receiver If the North River |
Sugar Refining Company, in the New |
York Supreme Court, on December |
}lst, 1899, against the corporations and |
firms composing the Sugar Trust, for
he dissolution uf TN. partnership en-
tered iuto by IL with the North River |
Sugar Rpiiuing Company (which
owed no debts. aud was owned hV the
Trust), and for an injunction restrain
ng the individual tefpitInnts from
paying out further iii videtuis, or other
wise disposirg ot the asset ~ saih CO.
CONFfuENCE LOST.
This suit, which was based upon the
decision ofJudge Barrett gd up0u that
" the Supreme Court In General Term
n November, 1850, affirming the IL
egality Of the Sugpr Trust-thnt II was
, conspiracy and against public policy, |
md that the several corporations com
posing the Trust had exceeded their
powers by entering into the combnn
ion aud had forfeited their charters,
md that the Trust was n copartnership |
" which each ~ the companies was