Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-01-17
HAWAIIAN ANN EXATION
How It Will Inju-e the Sugar Trust if Ac-
oomplished.
Ground of Its OppOsitIon to the
Tre"tS-It Has Lost Control Of
the Hawaiian Crop.

Statements are being made that the sugar
trust will be benefited by the annexation of
Hawaii and that it is therefore supporting
the treaty. On the other hand, 1t is said
that the sugar trust will be injured by an
nexation. and that 1t is therefore opposing
the treaty.
1t may be taken for granted that the
sugar trust will support or oppose annexa-
ton according as its mater rial interests are
benefited or injured by that measure. for
no one has ever charged the trust with be-
ing guided by sentiment or patriotism.
Whether annexation will benefit or injure
the sugar trust does not deperd upon argu-
ment or belief; it depends upon facts. What
are the facts?
The policy of the sugar trust, in common
with that of every other trust. is to crush
competition and obtain a monopoly of the
market for their product.
The product of the sugar trust for which
they seek monopoly, is refined sugar.
There is no conceivable reason why the
annexation of Hawaii will help the sugar
trust in maintaining its monopoly. vA''a
there are manifest reasons why annexation
will interfere Herewith.
Why Annexation VIII Injure the
Trust.
The tariff law .+vies higher duty on re-
fined and high-srade raw sugar than on
low-grade raw sugar, thereby practically
prohibiting the importation of refined and
high-grade raw sugar into this country
The tariff is levied on refined and high
grade raw sugar from Hawaii, as well as
from other countries. as the Hawaiian
reciprocity treaty admits free of duty only
dark or low-grade sugars
AS long, therefore. as Hawaii remains
out of the Union it's sugars cannot compete
with the product Of the sugar trust
Ac 10 q
the boundaries of the Union it will be in
position to place high-grade raw or refined
sugar upon the American market and
thereby become immediate and direct
competitor with the trust.
There is no likelihood that Hawaii will
produce any amount of refined sugar, but
there is every probability that it will pro-
duce a high-grade raw sugar. a wholesome
and palatable article. which will be con-
sumed without being refined, thereby de-
priving the trust Of the profit upon just
that amount of sugar.
Prior to the reciprocity treaty, when all
sugars paid duty alike, the greater part of
the Hawaiian crop was sold direct to con-
sumers under the name of washed sugar:
washed sugar. is produced by simply
pouring a bucket of water into the drying
centrifugal the moment before the sugar
is taken from the machine, which mas the
effect of washing of the thin film OF mo-
lasses adherng to each grain of sugar,
leaving a granulated sugar of sparkling
charine strength.
This sugar is preferred by many people
to refined sugar, but, being unrefined,
there is no profit to the retiner If this
sugar is consumed: therefore the interest
of the trust is to prevent its sale. Hawaii
independent cannot sell this sugar In the
United States, because the duty excludes
Il. Hawaii annexed, would be within the
tariff wall and could therefore sell this
sugar i'm competition with refined sugar.
Therefore annexation interferes with the
monopoly of the trust and is injurious 10
it.
The Trust Loses Control of the Crop.
4 second reason why the sugar trust op
poses annexation and why it sought last
year to secure the abrogation of the re-
ciprocity treaty is that under either an
nexation or reciprocity Hawaiian sugar is
bound to come to this country. as it Sc
cures more favorable terms here than
elsewhere. Tie trust must either purchase
it or it will go to possible rivals.
Since the trust secured the practical
monopoly of refining sugar in this coun-
try, it has succeeded in controlling the
entire Hawaiian crop until December 81
last, when its contract with the Hawaiian
planters expired.
1t has this year secured the control only
of the sugar owned by Theopholis Dav-
ies the English guardian of Princess Ikaiu-
lani and a few plantations controlled by
Claus Spreckes, both of whom are OPP
posing annexation, amounting to less than
one-ffth of the total Hawaiian crop.
All of the rest of the islands crop for
the coming year has been sold to three
reiineries who are rivals of the trust-two
located in Brooklyn, n. Y, and one re-
Gently started in California. Another
thing which the trust fears has therefore
already, in part. taken place, viz: The
furnishing of sugar bv producers within
the tariff line of the United States to rival
refineries.
Domestic cane produced only 100000 tons
in 1896. and beet sugar amounted to only
A., $50 tons. This amount is comparatively
so small that with a total consumption
of sugar in the United States of 2.262,U
short tons during 1876, it is not a serious
matter for the trust 10 take care of 1t.
But if the 100000 tons produced by Hawaii,
worth, approximately, s15.oo0o0, is also
made domestic sugar, it will add so much
to the amount which the trust must take
care of that it Will constitute a serious
feature in its business.
If, on the other hand. annexation can
be prevented and the reciprocity treaty
repealed the trust will still have only
the domestic sugar to take care of.
For these reasons the annexation of Ha-
waii will interfere with the business pol
icy and monopoly of the sugar trust.
No other business interests in the United
States will be interfered with. but many
will be directly and all indirectly benefited
by Hawaiian anr eXation.
Does any one telieve that the sugar
trust Is SO unSeiHSR as 10 advocate a meaS-
ure injurious to itself for the benefit of
othe- American citizens? And yet this is
what those would have the public believe
who seek to throw odium upon annexation
by stating that it is being supported by
the sugar trust.
1t is a worthy tribute to the character of
that organization that, regardless of the
merits of any given measure, the support
Of the sugar trust Is considered harmful.
FRANCE AND RUSSIA PROTEST.