The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1897-02-22

NT1-TTT1N
the sugar trust. according to the witness;
Havemeyer & Elder. 10000; Dick q Meyer,
S2la.c0: DE Costro, S2J0. 900; Miller a Slerck'
$4,000; Oxnard, 100000; +. O. Matthie-
son q Wicchers. 100000; brooklyn SSoo'-
COo; Havcmcyor. Sl.W0.Wo. Forest lily sSvo'-
coo: Boston. S65oO0c: Standard M.COOOoo; lay
State S225 600; ST. Louis $4,000. LOUISIANA
S450.CJ0; Planters. $-5oUoo
us she increase of large corporations a
disadvantage TO the workingman?' asked
the chairman suddenly.
..No sir. but if we had Jess legislation we
would be better off. If you will make laws
that viii invite capital 70 this state. IN
stead of driving 1t away II would be an
advantage But 80 long as Investigations
like this are fomented II makes capital
unsafe and uncertain. and makes IL acl
ON the defensive rs though II were the
enemy of the workingmen. There is "A
law far higher than the legislature Of the
state of New York-the law of supply and
demard-which controls I'll these things
and which no trust, however Dig Is apie
fo violate"
"Wncn the nation permits the creation
of a monopoly do you consider that there
is At least an underlying obligation TO give
the labor on the one hand and the con-
sumner on the other hand an adequate
share in the benefits of its economy?
IF the monopoly exists. / think there
should be some such obligation.
40 YOU think the American Sugar Re
6ninf. COMPANY in the monopoly or quasi
monopoly IL had shown itself to be mere
should be fostcrcd in the absence OF the
two considerations / have mentioned in
my former questions
Mr. Searles got hot at this question ana
snapped back:
The American Sugar Refining Company
Is not a monopoly or a quasi-monopoly III
any sense Of the word. The American
Sugar Refining Company is I'm the interests
faraI haaFn
| why the state should interfere with It's
business in any Particular.
Mr.. Searlcs expressed the belief that
the cost of sugar To the consumer would
Ice half cent per pounS greater without
! the commission of the refiners.
..Did YOU say that the trust was formed
/ because OF Illegal combinations OF labor?
Fl said that there were combinations of
! labor which melted strikes"
And these strikes were for increased
I wages"
This closed the examination OF MT
! Scarles. who left the stand smiling.
J Lawson \. Fuller was then recalled ana
! said that between .S60 and is61 there were
| forty-eight sugar refnerics doing business
/ and that they employed between zoooV
! and 80 COO men lie said that twenty eight
| of these rchneries went out of business
! throwing between 10.O00 and 1900 men out
OF employment.
"po YOU think there wee more men EN-
/ ploycd then or now?"
.Wcu should Judge that forty-eight
refncr.es would employ more men than
Z two reiineries," said Mr.. Fuller. III the
1 sugar trust was not formed TO reduce eN-
I pcnscs / do not know what II was formed
I for Mr. Searles stated that the trust
was formed to Eet rid of the weak men in
the business. but ! say 1t was formed to
/ get rid Of the honest men"
Asks for Honest Senators.
Mr. Fuller then paused a moment and
| said: Now. l want to say, that II You
/ give us honest senators we Will have
I cheaper sugar. I am I'm favor OF electlhg
| men TO congress who will legislate IN favor
I OF the public"
/ The Investigation of the United States
/ Rubber Company was then begun.
President Havemeyer on the Stand.
! After recess Mr.. Havemeyer put In an
/ appearance.
Mr. Iexow asked II he had brought the
trust deed OF the American Sugar refining
| Company. He had not, and he did not
| know where II was Lawyer Parsons.
counsel for the sugar company. who was
/ present. said II had been in his possession
| but he did not know where 1t could be
found.
Mr. Havemeyer said that the figures
showing the distribution of the preferred
l stock of the company were cut out By
l Mr. Parsons by permission of the arnold
| committee at the time of the lnvestiga-
| ton by the United States session. Neither
| Havemeyer nor Parsons could tell what
| became of the books of the original trust.
| They presumed the books had been de-
! stroyed.
Mr. Havcmeyer expressed regret that
the trust deed had not been destroyed, as,
| I'm his opinion. 1t was that deed that had
caused all the persecution of the sugar
| company.
The sugar people were then dismissed
with the remark from Chairman Lexow
that the only question remaining for them
was the production of the deed of trust.
| All other information had been supplied.