The Norfolk weekly news. (Norfolk, Neb.) 1888-1900, 1899-07-20
ANSWERED BY OXNAR|l
Manufacturing and Importing
Interests Antagonistic.
OBJECT or TRUST is DISCLOSED,

An Effort to Divert A,ton tion From the
workings of one of the Loading Monpo
Iics-Mr Oxnard Defends the TsriT.
Two Leading Trusts are not Protected.
At the time of the organization OF the
American Beet Sugar company, to which
the Norfolk factory belongs, it was asso-
oiated by many with the American Su-
gar Refining company, Of which Ii. ..
Havemeyer, the trust magnats, is the
head The former, however, is cxclu.
sively manufacturing concern while
the latter attends almost wholly to the
importing business, the two interests
therefore being rivals In the market.
The testimony given by Mr.. Havemeyer,
before the industrial commission, in
which he seeks to direct attention from
the trust to the protective tariff by
charging the tariff with being respon.
sible for all trusts has called forth from
Henry r. Oxnard, president Of the beet
sugar company, the following convin-
cling article in reply In it he charges
Havomeyer with gross misstatements
and with seeking to destroy the beet su.
gar industry which is proving such n
dangerous competitor OF the trust. The
following is Mr.. Oxnard's article:
"In justice to the home sugar pro.
ducers, and rs president of the Ameri
can Beet Sugar Producers Association,
wish to call attention to few of the
inaccuracies in II. o. Havemeyer's re.
cent and wonderfully fallaoious argu.
ment before the industrial commission
at Washington. Mr.. Havcmeyer makes
claims which he cannot in any way
subtantiate. A fair sample of his illogi.
cal argument is found in the first line,
which forms the basis of his whole argu.
ment, viz 1.-THE customs tariff is the
mother of oil trusts"
"Mr. Havemeyer says that the tariff
irresponsible for all large trusts, because
they are Unfortunately protected, except
the sugar trust. The two largest, in
fact the pioneer trust in this country,
as every one knows, are the Standard
Oil and Sugar trusts. The Standard Oil
company does not enjoy its monopoly
from the tariff, and the American Sugar
Refining company, according to Mr..
Havemeyer, receives only -, per cent
protection. How absurd, then, this is
to say that the tariff is responsible for
trusts. But right here wish to dispute
Mr.. Havemeyer's statement regarding
the protection afforded to sugar refining,
claiming that it only receives n proteo-
tion Of 81 per cent In the Dingley
tariff act sugar refining receives pro.
lection of an eighth of a cent per pound
and the testimony produced before the
ways and means committed, of which
Mr.. Dingley was chairman, brought
out the fact that sugar in modern re
finery, with best machinery, we'll loca
ted, can be refined ut cost Of about a
quarter of cent per pound. We there
fore find that sugar refining under those
conditions is receiving q protection OF
not 81, but 50per cent, ad valorem
based on the cost of refining sugar
The error in Mr.. Havemeyer's argu.
ment is that he arrives at the protection
to sugar refined based on the value OF
refined sugar. In other words, basine
the value at 3 cents per pound, and
receiving a protection Of only l2ls
cents, Mr.. Havemeyer would be right in
saying that he receives only protection
OF approximately per cent; but Mr.
Havemeyer does not produce the sugar
and his only interest is in the cost ol
making raw sugar white, or, in other
words, refining raw brown sugar. ant
his protection must be based or what the
cost is of refining instead of the value of
the sugar which brings his protection
from per cent. up to 40 or 80 per cent.
The protection granted the sugar pro
duoers who make the article or of sugal
itself is 40 per cent Oh the cost of raw
sugars to-day, or identical with the pro
lection granted the sugar refining com
panies.
Should Mr.. Havemeyer's selfish sug
gestions be adopted, it would wipe ou
santiralv tho Amar;cau hop,a sugar II,