The Lafayette gazette. [volume] (Lafayette, La.) 1893-1921, 1895-02-09
FOLLY or THE SUGAR TRUST.


The threat of tho sugar trust to
close its eastern refneries was char
aceeristic of the methods of that
monopoly. 1t was made by Mr.. II. O.
Havemeyer. the president of the trust.
within few days of the meeting of
congress, and Mr.. Havemeyer based
the pretended necessity for closing
the refineries and turning thousands
OF men out of employment on the
psoba bility of the passage of the free
sugar bill, which. having gone through
the house of representatives at the
last session of congress-, is pending in
the senate. At the time when this
threat was uttered there was small
probability that tho free-sugar bill
would be passed by tho senate. There
was then no evidence. SO far as the
public knew. that tn hold of the trust
on the senators who compelled the
surrender to its demands was weak
ened. But Mr.. Haven eyer's interview
has evidently greatly discredited the
trust in Washington. 1t has aroused
widespread indignation against tho
trust. which, coupled with the popu-
lar verdict in the country, and es-
pecially in his own state, has COM
PEELED even the obstinate and cynical
Senator Smith to denounce the friends
by adhering to whom last summer he
incurred much deserved odium.
The threat was clearly ill-timed, and
otherwise indicative that to Mr.. Have
meyer, as to other men who have been
cleverly and astutely defiant of the
public sentiment in favor of morality,
and whose success in corruption or
selfish greed has seemed unbounded,
there has come = time when folly has
taken possession of him. So cruel and
unnecessary was his threat that the
president felt constrained TO mention
it in his message, and to express a
willingness, in view of it. that the
especial protection enjoyed by the
trust should be repealed.
Mr.. Ilavcmeyer apparently thought
that he had only to drive his working
men into the streets to stay the hand
Of the advocates of free sugar. But he
forgot. or never realized, the almost
universal hatred which his own and
his associates conduct in Washington
had inspired. He and they were among
the most potent factors of democratic
defeat. The country believes the trust
purchased protection from the SEN
ate, and that German, Brice, Smith and
some others were practically its agents.
1t knows from the testimony of the
two uavemcycrs and Searles that the
trust habitually corrupted both polit-
ical parties. 1t has reason to know
that the trust is amply protected,
and that if it has lost money or
failed to make it in the last three
months it is because it was too conf
dent in its power to postpone the oper-
alton of the act until the LIST of jan
uary. More important than oil else is
the knowledge that the business of re-
fninG sugar is conducted in this coun-
try more cheaply than anywhere else
in the world, and that tho trust can
actually pay some duty on its raw ma
tcrial and still compete with the Ger
man and English refineries in the mar
lets of the world. 1t knows from
Henry o. Havemeyer's own testimony,
given in 1850, that American refiners
do not need protection.
The indignant outcry with which
Mr.. Havemeyer's threat was greeted
was followed by the return to the
re6neries of the few worl<ingmen
who were discharged. This was a con-
fcssion that, instead OF being under a
stress of civil circumstances, the trust
could not afford to stop production
even for a few days. and for the pur-
pose of preventing the passage of the
free-sugar bill.
The result of all this ought to inspire
the senate to do something towards
curing one of the grossest scandals that
ever tainted it. The differential duty at
least should be abolished. If this much
is accomplished the country will be
grateful for Mr.. Havemeyer's folly
Harper's Weekly.
SUGAR TRUST SENATORS.