The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-06-14
M'KIYLET LAw BITTER FOR TRUST
Havemeyer Says Under the New Tariff His
Profile will be Greatly Rednced.
WASHINGTON. June 1a.-H. o. Have


WASHINGTON. June 13-H. 0. Have
meyer was before the Sugar Trust COM
mittee again to-day.
Mr.. Havemeyer was on the stand ABOUT
half an hour. He ma4e only one I'M
pOrtant statement that was new, most OF
his testimony being "A repetition of WhdJ
he said yesterday. lie declined 10 state
the amount Of money the American Sugar
Refining Company had contributed 10
State and local campaign funds, and as
serted that this was matter over WhlCh
1e committee had no jurisdiction. IN
This connection Mr. HaVemeyer reaihrmed
his statement Of yesterday that the re-
nnius company, "hlch lHI. nav euilcy
saw, Is "misnamcd trust" had contributed
nothing TO any national campaign tuhd.
with reference 10 the question as 10
how much money the sO-cMIed trust Hda
made in profits that could be attributed
the rather ambiguous answer that the
profits that would be made under tne
tariff bin now before the Senate would
be about one-fourth Of those made under
The Mckinley law Mr.. Havemeyer was
excused at the conclusion OF ms tesu-
mOny IL Is understood that the com
mittee has no authority 10 make MI
HaVemeyer tell how much money the re-
hning company contributed FOR state ana
local campaign purposes.
The members of the committee are very
much gratihed at the full ana free stat
ments made by Mr., Hayemeyer, and they
saw that they believe he was entirely
frank in what he said.
Mr.. Havemeyer testified that the profit
Of the Sugar Trust under the existing law
NIcKinley) is 3-Sc. per pound, and that
under the proposed sugar schedule IN
the pending tariff bill the Increased cost
of sugar to the consumer will be lc. per
pound. Senator Lindsay asked:
Is not this the further fact, that the
trust. being able to fix the price in Amer
lea. has il not been the policy OF the
trust to fix It just low enough to keep out
refined sugar made in foreign countries?
Answer: That IS the business, pracu-
callv Of the American Sugar Refining
Question: And you have so fixed it as
practically TO eXclue all foreign competl-
A. Yes, sir, as protection to our own
IN fact" said Senator Allen. the very
purpose Of the foundation Of the trust
as | understand you. was to advance the
price of sugar to the American consumer
yes SIR" was the frank response.
"And the American consumer is to-day
paving three-eights Of a cent q pound
on refined sugars more than he would be
conn elled 10 pay under system OF free
tor separatel reiinerles!
yes sir.
John Searles, secretary Of the Sugar
Trust. also testified, but he added very
little to the committees 5 stock of infoma-
tiOn. the ground having been so thorough
w covered by Mr. HaVemeycr
He corroborated Mr.. Havemcyer's state
ments throughout.
He said his sole business in Washington
last winter was procuring information
on intended legislation.
Then Mr.. Allen proceeded to question
Mr. Seares about the contributions 10
campaign funds. Mr. Searles said that
contributions had been made in 1897 but
he ala not care 10 testify on that point,
unless the resolution under which the
committee was acting embraced that in
did embrace that point. and answered.
"In answer to that question with refer
ence TO any contributions 10 secure the
defeat of legislation, l answer emphati-
callN no."