Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1899-07-20
HAvEMEYER AND THE TRUSTS.
PHILADELPHIA press. :"

Phllaueipnla Press.
President Havemeyer, of the Sugar
Trust, testified before committee of Con-
gress a few years ago that if the duty on
refined sugar were reduced the relinerles
in the United States would be closed, thou
sands of men would be thrown out of en-
poyment and vast millions of dollars OF
capital would be wiped out of existence.
But the duty wes reduced and the trust
kept on prospering,as before. Did Have
meyer tell the truth then? There was just
as much truth in that testimony as in his
more recent assertion that the tariff is re-
sponsible for the trusts.
When the Dingley bill was in process OF
formation davemeyer again sought to
prevent any reduction in the duty on re-
fined sugar, and he tried at the same time
to prevent legislation that would aid IN
the development of the belt sugar indus
try. But he failed in both efforts, and he
has been sore ever since; hence his tariff
denunciation, which has given so much
pleasure to his a sociates in the Democrat
ic party. But Mr.. Havemeyer does not
want free trade. His complaint is that
the taliff is not high enough on refined,
sugar, thus demonstrating the falslty OF
the Democratic charge that 1t was specially
favored by the Dingley bill. TO the ques-
ton as to what would be the effect if the
differential duty of one-eghth of a cent
pound on refined sugar were removed.
Mr.. Havemeyer replied
1t would knock the sugar industry silly.
1t would infict a terrible and infamous
wrong upon 1905 people dependent
upon it, merely trucking to a miserable
bugaboo here of a public clamor about
trusts. The industry is dependent upon
this one-elght per cent. diferential duty
1t is not enou5h; we ought to have one
quarter.
While denouncing the tariff to please
Democrats, Mr.. Havemeyer says that the
refining industry is wholly dependent for
its existence on the tariff. That is true
enough, as demonstrated by the exper-
fence of Great Britain. Formerly "a per
cent. of all the sugar consumed
in the United Kingdom was there
Now hardly any of it is refined at home.
: The British refneries have nearly all
been closed up as the result of the compe-
tition of reineries in Germany, France
and other bounty-paying countries. I'm
der free trade the refining industry in
Great Britain went to the wall. Mr.. Have
never SAYS that similar result would fol-
low the adoption of free trade here, and
he denounces such proposition as "infa-
NOUS" At the same time he hypocrlt-
ically asserts that "the tariff is responsible
for the trusts" What is the value OF the
testimony of man who contradlcts him.
self in that fashion? Moreover, Mr. Have
, never testified some years ago that the Ia
Dor employed in refining sugar was nearly
all skilled. In his recent testimony, when
asked about the class Of laborers employed
in his reineries, whether skilled or I'M
skilled, he REPLIED
Almost exclusively unskilled, the lowest
kind of labor, getting from Sl.35 to $l.5O
per day-Poes, Bohemians, the lowest
class of labor in this country.
That is the truth, and that is why sugar
- refining does not require much protection
i as compared with industriri that employ
q highly skilled labor. Ten per cent on re-
e fined sugar would be high enough as COM
8 pared with 40 or 80 per cert. protection
s on other industries. 1t is question as to
whether or not the protection on refined
t SUGAR is not too high. Notwithstanding
the hypocritlcal complaint Of Mr.. Have
s myer, the Crust" pays y per cent. divl-
+. dend on its enormously inflated stock. If
MIR. Havemeyer thinks that lie can scare
e the Republican party into giving the trusts
e more protection by attacks on the tariff he
is mistaken.
The poor people of this country had a
costly experience under President Cleve-
land, with a tariff squirting at free trade,
and they want no more OF it. Even the
British Parliament, by al majority. re-
Gently voted for protective measure
"modeled on American lines" as Lore
Curzon said, for the benefit Of the sugar
producers of India. The tendency every
where is toward tariff protection. The
world never had Il more powerful demon
stration of the benefits of II protective tar
if than it has under the Mckinley Adj
ministration. No steps backward will be