The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1896-12-31

7
I sugar industry, and on lines which fully
q recognize the overshadowing Importance
| of developing sugar production in the
United States and by such methods as
| insure a protection equivalent to what we
have hereinbefore suggested.
Il j. Hale Sypher formerly of Louisiana,
4 presented some additional facts in regard
to the cane sugar industry of Louisiana
and gave ii as the result of his experience
and Inquiries that the cost to the sugar
trust Of refining sugar id not exceed one
| quarjer of a cent a pound, while in Louis-
, | anaAhe cost was about Is per cent. This,
, heAdded, did not include waste.
Colon Humphreys of New York made
Come additional remarks and was inquired
q as to the cost of refining sugar. He dis
4 ! taimed any personal acquaintance with
: | vat mdtter, but estimated that, with a
{ Ugh gtade of raw sugar, the cost would
. | 1t be far from that stated by Mr.. Sypher.
AZ u 8 pound; but with a low grade of raw
Lr, I tar. the cost would probably be ls-cent
In aouud, as the refiners asserted Scent
Y" Ipound.
pe r.. McMillin inquired as to whether SUI
sRs refining in this country was not in the
-Ai- lids of the sugar trust
I lr. Humphreys showed a manifest dis
r piDation to go into the matter saying
oq1- It members of the committee knew as
th about it as he did. Practically,
a Fever, he said, the sugar trust was a
animation of all the refineries which had
'eo., Isted at the time of it's organization.
thfBut,' he added, "since then three or
ual our or five outside refineries have grown
: p; and, if you let the matter alone, be-
Sqeve that within the next two or three
gears there win be half a dozen more es-
/. tabished."
! F. B. Thurber of New York, president
y of the American Grocer Publishing Com
4 pany, spoke in behalf of the consumers,
4 distributors and refiners of sugar of the
! United States. He said that there was
no just reason why American sugar inter-
ests, whether engaged in producing. re-
lining or distribution, should not be entitled
TO the same degree of protection as in 9TH
err countries. No other product reaches
the consumer in this country with the same
| small margin of profit to manufacturer and
distributor. AS a distributor of sugar for
many years, he has done so at less than the
ocst of the services rendered. When TIE
| organization of the industry aimed to give
| distributors a commission equivalent 10
the cost of the service rendered, a cry
| of combination and monopoly was set up
which was calculated to coerce legislators
and courts into favoring chaos instead of
justice. Al no time has there been a mo-
| nopoly and to-day there are four compet-
ing refining organizations with a fifth
| threatened.
To-day the consumers of France and Ger
many, the largest producers of sugar in the
| WOIIu, pay ABOUT 50 per cent. more thdn
| those of the United States, but those coun-
tries protect their sugar industries with
bounty which enables them to dump their
| surplus on foreign markets at abnormally
low prices, which have broken down the
refining industries in England, and
but for our barrier of protective duties
they would do the same for both our pro-
ducng and refining industries.
TheAmerican Sugar Refining Company,
or the so-called sugar trust" was or
| ganized in 1887. Before the consolidation
many refineries were driven into bank
ruptcy, or out of business. but since that
| time, owing to the organization of the
industry consumers. distributors and re-
! finers have been benefited. Representa-
| tives of special interest are now seeking
to change the basis of duty and minimize
| the principle of protection, but Invested
of all illusions, the question presented Is
| whether the work of refining should be
done abroad or in the United States. Spe,
cif1c duties in many lines have an honest
basis for preference, but in such commo-
dities as sugar, in which pound values
may vary as much as 100 per cent, the
principle is manifestly iucongruous and
| impracticable. Raw sugar, worth cents
a pound, should not pay as much per
| pound as refined worth cents per pound,
| and while a schedule based on graduated
| saccharine strength, as defined by the
polariscope, might approximate justice, it
| would not do so to an extent which would
Justify the disturbance of the present
basis to which trade has already adjusted
itself.
One feature, he said, should not be lost
! sight Of Any differential imposed upon
the product of any country granting a
bounty should only apply to the refined
product. and not TO the raw materialre-
quired by our refineries.
Mr. McMillin-What are the methods of
Refining Company?
| Mr. Thurber-The distribution of sugar
! by wholesale is now practically on the
commission basis. The sugars are sold
with the understanding that a certain
| commission about 3-16) is paid to the
wholesaler as his profit; and while the
! American Refining Company will sell SUI
gar to any one at its list price. he cannot
| get the benefit of that 3-16 commission
unless he is bound by that agreement.
Mr.. McAIllin-Does the sugar refining
company require that the sugar shall not
be sold below certain figure?
Mr. Thurber-Yes; that It shall not be
sold at less than the manufacturers list
price
Mr.. McMilln-Is payment of this COM
mission made in the form of a rebate
when the sale is made, and do those who
deal in those goods have to make state
ment before they can get this rebate, that
they have not violated their undertaking
not to sell below the list price?
Mr.. Thurber-Yes, they have so to GER
| tify.
Mr.. McMilin-And without that they do
not get paid for handling the goods?
Mr.. Thurber-No, sir.
Mr.. McMillin-Suppose that some one
that had these goods proposes TO sell them
TO another party. is the other party re-
ouired to carry out the undertaking?
Mr.. Thurber-No sir.
Mr.. McMillin-If a wholesale dealer sells
to a retail dealer, the retail dealer can do
| as he pleases?
Mr.. Thurber-Yes.
Mr.. McAlillin-Do refners who buy raw
! sugar coming from bounty paying coun-
/ tries get the benefit of the bounty paid