The Hawaiian gazette., 1894-10-12
Compilation Of Some Extremely In
teresting Data.
HISTORY OF TIE GREAT COMBINE
Harper's Weekly Reviews the Evidence
That Has Accumulated Regarding the
Concern, And Draws Certain COnclu-
sions-How Millions Are Juggled with

"For a number of years have made
200 per cent. at least on the amount of
my investment" is said to have been
the assertion of Mr.. +. o. Matthies-
sen, one of the principal promoters of
the Sugar Trust. Accepting this state
ment as correct, il is evident that
sugar-refining was one OF the most
lucrative of all industries prior to 1887,
when the Sugar Trust was organized.
The wear 1856 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 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 d 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-Refining 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-
tion with whose affairs the names of
F. o. Matthiessen, II. o. Havemeyer,
John 7. Searles. julius A. Stursberg,
Theodore A. Havemeyer, Joseph Z.
Thomas, John Jurgensen, Hector G.
Havemeyer, Charles H. 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
thsn 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.
THE USE OF MONIES.
Aud so the Sugar Trust was organ
lied with a capital of $4,000, ,OO0-S25,-
100000 being in preferred and $25,000,- |
600 in common stock. The plants
owned by the several members, in
cluding one that afterward declined
amalgamatiOn, were literally valued
at 35 per cent. of $4,000, 900, or $l7,-
100000, and on this basis stock to the
amount of so, 500, 600 was issued. The
$500, 900 left in the treasury, rumor
says, was used in compromising the
suit of Mr.. HentZ for his commissions
and in the distribution of various bo-
muses.. Funds for conducting the bus
ness in all the operated plants were
obtained through the issuance of $10,-
100000 of bonds. These, which take
precedence of the preferred stock, were
accepted as collateral security by lead
ing members of the Trust-individu-
ais loaning money on them, as neces-
sity required. One trustee (Mr. f. o.
Matthiessen), is said to have loaned
from one to two million dollars at
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 20, and rose to 126 in 1889.
From that altitude it dropped to 80 in
January, 1890, and thence rose to 20 in
IL foil
violent may be explained IN part by
the suit brought by Mr.. Henry w.
GRAY, as receiver Of the North River
Sugar Refining Company, in the New
York Supreme Court, on December
3lst, 1889, against the corporations and
firms composing the Sugar Trust, for
the dissolution of the partnership en-
tered into by it with the North River
Sugar Refining Company (which
owed no debts, and was owned by the
Trust), and for an injunction restrain
ing the individual defendants from
paying out further dividends, or other
wise disposing of the assets of said co
partnership.
CONFIDENCE LOST.
This suit, which was based upon the
UeCiSiOu vi y uuSc cDdiISieidhu uPOb 1hoe
of the Supreme Court in General Term
in November, 1889, affirming the il
legality of the Sugar Trust-that it was
conspiracy and against public policy,
and that the several corporations COM
posing the Trust had exceeded their
powers by entering into the combina-
ton and had forfeited their charters,
and that the Trust was acopartnership
of which each of the companies was a
general partner-severely shook the
confidence of certificate-holders. Claus
Spreckels and other competing refiners
were said to be steadily diminishing
the earnings of the Trust, and that
Congress in all probability would take
such action in regard to duties as
would still further deplete the purses
of the sugar barons. Reliable author
ityn still further affirmed that pur
chases of raw material at high figures
and low quotations for refined sugars
involved the Trust in actual loss. The
chances were that the refineries would
be sold "under the hammer" and the
nroceeds deposited with the court for