The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-02-15

CONSUMERS BENEFIT
Lexow Grows Smaller and
Smaller as Sugar Trust
Facts Come Out.
SEARLES TAKES THE STAND
Margin of Profit on Sugar Refin-
ing Decreases-Our Production
the Finest in the World.
SEARLES TAKES THE STAND

ID. Post, commission merchant of this
city, He said he was the representative
of 7. H. Howell Son & Co. He repre-
sented the two eastern concerns that were
supposed to be in competition with the
American Sugar Refining Company.
These were the National Company and
the Mollennauer Companies.
You are the representative of T. H.
Howell, Son & Cor asked Chairman
Lexow.
Yes, sir; buy and sell sugar also for
the Moilenhauer Company"
The witness admitted that while he
represented T. H Howell, Son & Co. and
the Mollenhauer Company in sugar deal
fngs, he sometimes had the one company
competing against the other because it
occasionally happened that one company
wanted to buy and the other wanted to
sell.
THE product of both of these concerns
is competed for at the same time in your
office; is that what you mean to say?"
Yes, that sometimes happens"
do you mean to say that acting as
confidential agent for both of these COM
panier the National and the Mollen-
hauer, you permit them to compete
against each other?"
Yes, sir; paradoxica1 as 1t may seem,
that is sometimes the case.s You see,
sometimes buyer wants Mollenhauer
and won't take the National. Sometimes
also company does not want to SELL"
'Mr. Havemeyer stated that the margin
of profit between raw and refined sugar
is one per cent: is that true?"
'I have no doubt it is correct"
What is the profit now?"
: You brought 1t out to be nine-tenths
last week.
But don't you know the profit now?"
The raw sugar is y cents a pound and
the refined sugar lilo cents pound"
What is the cost of refining sugar?"
Il am not in the refining business re-
piled the witness sharply
Now, is it not fact that the profit in
has amounted to from s12.oOO,OOo to s14.-
100000 year?''
81 don't believe the profit has been at
all SO mucn.''
In reply to another question the witness
said that his company did not make one
fourth of cent per pound profit last
year. He added that his company was
not taxed to its full extent last year.
Now the evidence shows that the mar
gin of profit for the last ten years has
ranged from sl2,O90,ooO to 100000 an
nually: if that is the case how is it that
certain of the New York mills were not
running to their fullest extent?"
I don't believe, as 1 stated before,
there were any such profit. We were
content last year to make one-eighth of
cent profit
Then you don't refer to the American
sugar Refining Company?"
mo, sir; do not.''
The The witness stated that there were 25
brands OF sugar and there was competi-
tlon among grocers every day,
rs it not fact that you operate
through the same concerns and employ
me 8 same means as the American Sugar
practically yeS."
Senator Lexow then questioned tbe
,v,ia w1tness = about the factors agreement
~nIcn tne company had.
oa is II une same as that of the Ameri-
can sugar Refining Company?''
ouire m't an the fds exception that We do not re-
fhrree-sixths r of a cent. per pound
me witness then stated again that he
o,a-a o,u mol mink any of the ref1ners made
one.quarter Of cent profit last year.
And yet the factor gets BIG of a cent
leoate Wnen the refiner does not make u
ot an, cent? asked Senator Lexow
Ihats So" replied the witness.
Yes. SIR"
are you giving honest testimony in this
81 am here under oath and ann ta,,ins
tne truth" replied the witness Sharply.
The witness in reply to another question
said that the National Companys Capacity
was 2600 barrels a day and the vaiue Of
the property was about 81, 900 900. Neifher
the National nor the Mollenhauer had been
running to its full capacity, but at about
half since last November
Is 1T not fact that when the MolJen
hauer decreases its production the Nation
al also decreases theirs?'
Not always"
..Do Don't you know it to be fact?
NO, sir; circumstances vary"
Is It not a fact that when the Amer
lean Sugar Refining Company restrict
tnelr output or shut down, you also re-
strict your output and the other com
1T may be so.''
MI. Post denied that there was any
agreement between the American Com
He finally admitted there was an spree-
ment, but it was in regard to freight
Dont I your companies and the noerf
ca can @ sugar ar, Refining Company fix the price
No, sir, the price of sugar is f;xaa hv
the Whoie world. One-sixteenth or one
eighth of cent would carry sugar to anv
part of the world
The witness said that the price of s,,o.,
was fixed by the daily state Of the mar
ket and not by the refining comnan;as
ne explained tnat the equality rate hook
accepted by the grocers and the con-
panies only dealt with the freight. This
contract, the witness admitted. was to
stamp out competition, but was eul1aI1v
for the benefit of the grocer and the CON.
sumer because sugar was sold to every
body at the same price
Witness further testified that the con-
sumer was better off under the factors
agreement than without it. He denied
That the factors agreement was for the
purpose of shutting out competition and
declared it was simply for the purpose
OF enabling the grocer to make BIG of a
cent profit :
John e. Searles next took the stand
AFTER @stating that he did not recollect
having testified at his previous examina-
ton that the price of sugar was depressed
last year he admitted that although there
had been depression, the margin Of profit
between raw and refined sugar had been
increased during the last three years.
~ nat IS the cost of refining sugar?',
II Is from " to y of cent per
Is the margin of profit between raw
and refined sugar stin increasing?"
:, NO, sir; on the contrary, this year
there IS a. decrease. ;,
sOf how much ~
About l-8 of cent pound .
Is the American Sugar Refining Com
Many able to produce sugar cheaper than