The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-06-14
HAvEMEYER VERY FRANK.
He Admits That the Object of the
Trust Was to Put Up Prices.

He Admits That the Object of the
Trust Was to Put Up Prices.
Washington, June 13.-Henry o. Have
never was before the sugar trust com
mittee of the Senate again to-day. MIR.
Havemeyer was on the stand about half
an hour He made only one important
statement that was new, most of his tes-
timonv being a repetition of what he said
YES .erday. He declined to state the
amount of money the American Sugar
refining Company had contributed to the
state and local campaign. and asserted
mat this was a matter over which the
committee had no jurisdiction.
In this connection Mr.. Havemeyer re-
af6rmed his statement of Yesterday that
the refining company, which he. Have
never. says is misnamed a trust. had con-
tributed nothing to any national cam
paign fund. With reference to the ques-
lion as to how much money the so
called trust had made in profit that could.
he attributed directly to the Mckinley
acthe made arather ambiguous answer
that the profits that would be made under
the tariff bill now before the Senate
would be about one-fourth of those made
under the Mckinley law.
THE COST TO THE CONSUMER
MIR. Havemeyer testified that the profit
7IcKinley), is "a of a cent per pound and
that under the proposed sugar schedule
in the pending tariff bill the increased
cost of sugar to the consumer will. be |.
cent per pound.
Senator Lindsay asked-Is not this a
further fact that the trust being able to
fix the price in America, has it not been
the policy of the trust to fix it Just low
enough to keep out refined sugar made in
foreign countrieSl
Answer-That is the business. practi-
cally, of the American Sugar Refining
Ouestion-And you have so fixed it as
10 practically exclude all foreign compe-
ttionl
Answer-Yes, sir; as protection to our
own business.
very purpose of the formation of the
trust, as / understand you, was to ad-
vance the price of sugar to the American
consumer"
Eyes, sir,'' was the frank. response.
and the American consumer is TODAY
paying "a of a cent a pound on refined
sugars more than he would be compelled
to pay under a system of free (or sep
arateD refineries?"
''Yes, sir"
Mr.. Havemeyer was excused at the con-
clusion of his testimony.
1t is understood that the committee has
no authority to make Mr.. Havemeyer tell
how much money the refining company
contributed for state and local campaign
purposes.
THE TRUSTS SECRETARY.
John G. Searles, secretary and trea-
surer of the sugar trust. also testified,
but he added very little to the commit
tees stock of information, the ground
having been so thoroughly covered by
MIR, Havemeyer. He corrobprated Mr..
Havemeyer's statements throughout
MIR. Searles said his sole business in
Washington last winter was for the pur-
pose of influencing congressional legisla-
ton on the sugar schedule.
Then Mr.. Allen proceeded to question
Mr.. Searles about the contributions of
the trust to campaign funds. Mr.. Searles
said that contributions had been made in
1892 but he did not care to testify on
that point unless the resolution
under which the committee was
acting embraced that inquiry. He was
told that the resolution did embrace that
point, and answered: 'In answer TO that
question with reference to any contribu-
ton TO secure or defeat legislation, l an
swer emphatically, No"