Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-06-14
THE SUGAR COMBINE
MIR. Henry 0. Havemeyer Before the
Industrial Commission.
SAYS SUGAR is NOT PROTECTED
Claims That the Tariff Law is the
Cause of Trusts.
THE HOSTILITY TO CAPITAL

THE HOSTILITY TO CAPITAL
Mr.. Henry o. Havemeyer, president OF
the American Sugar Refining Company,
was before the Industrial commission to-
day. There was a great deal of interest
in the testimony to be given by Mr.. Have
meyer There was a large attendance Of
members of the commission and an unusual
number of newspaper representatives. The
president of the great sugar combination
took his place in the witness stand about
IL o'clock. He is a large man, and began
his testimony with smiling countenance.
He was sworn by Vice Chairman Phillips.
Mr.. Havemeyer began his testimony by
reading statement which he had prepared
for the commission. He proved a ready
witness and frequently gave very pointed
and positive replies. On number of oc-
casions he said he wanted it understood
there was no philanthropy in his replies
but he was talking on business principles
He made vigorous attack on high tariff,
which. he said, simply allowed corporations
TO hlch the people. Reading his statement
he said:
Against u Customs Tariff Bill.
THE mother of all trusts is the customs
tariff bill. The existing bill and the pre-
ceding one have been the occasion of the
lorna ton of all the large trusts, with very
few exceptions, inasmuch as they provide
for an inordinate protection to all the in
terests of the country-sugar refining ex-
cepted.. Economic advantages incident to
the onsoldation of large interests in the
same line Of business are great incentive
to their 70 rmation, but these bear a very
insignificant proportion to the advantages
granted in the way of protection under the
customs tariff
There probably Is not an industry that
requires protection of more than 10 per
cent ad valarem, and it is to obtain what is
provided over such percentage in the tariff
that leads to the formation of what are
commonly spoken of as trusts
With a protection to an industry not
exceeding 10 per cent, all menace to the
community of trusts would cease. This 10
per cent would represent the difference in
cost OF production, and likewise act as
protection against surface products of for
eign countries being dumped in our local
markets, thereby interfering with the reg
utar and economic working of our indus
tries. Any advantages that might then ac-
crue to such combinations they would be
fully entitled to, and the public would not
be damaged thereby, as any expansion of
price would be met by foreign competition
and relief
Sugar Not Protected.
Il have said that sugar was an exception.
The rate of protection on sugar is "
of cent per pound which is about 31a per
cent ad valorem, and is not the difference
in the cost of refining between this and for
eign countries. The least it should have is
per cent or, in specific figures. u per cent
per pound. The sugar refining industry Of
this country. no matter what form it's Or
ganization. is entitled to adequate protec-
tfon. if any industry is. There are at least
100000 people dependent upon it. What it
pays, or has paid, to it's stockholders In the
past represents nothing more than fair
return on the capital invested, considering
the extent of the business. - u
THE United States tariff bill, in assessing
about $40 per ton, duty on imported sugar,
pays into the pockets of a few Louisianians
on their annual crop, 10000 tons, $180U0,-
600; to the Hawaiian islanders, probably
represented by 40 foreigners, on their an
nual crop of 250,06O tons, $10,oo6,oO0; say
100000 tons produced elsewhere in the
United States, "a, 100000.
Here you have S24, O0O, 900 extracted from
the people Of the United States for the sake
OF getting the revenue which 81 per ton on
foreign sugar provides. This is merely IL
it-and its effect upon the people. In fact,
the tariff bill clutches the people by the
throat. and then the governors and the
attorneys. general of the several states take
action. not against the cause, but against
the machinery which the people employ to
rifle the public's pockets.
There appears to be in the public mind
distinction between robbery by an indi-
vidual and that by corporation. What is
commendable in an Individual appears to be
dishonest in a corporation.
Il maintain that it Is immaterial to the
public in what form business is done
whether by an individual, firm, corporation
even trust. These are merely forms of
conducting business, or, in other words, ma
chinery for the operation of business. 1t Is
the duty of the government to see that
under the tariff laws they enact this ma
chinery cannot in it's actions result to the
detriment or impoverishment of the public.
An Internal Revenue Tax.
at would have been very easy and prop
err for the government to have put a cor
responding internal revenue tax on sugar
simultaneously with the imposition Of the
customs duty, and have these S24, 100000,
which now go into the pockets of a few
individuals. go into the treasury for the
benefit of the whole people. If no expenses
of the government needed to be provided
for. and protection to American industries
was desired, the imposition Of 10 per cent
ad vaiorem on all manufactured products
would have settled the matter. There is
every reason why. if revenue is desired,
that with duty on raw materials Of for
etgn production corresponding internal
revenue tax should be levied on similar
products. and the protection to nanufac-
turers thereof limited to an additional 10
per cent.
Il repeat that all this agitation against
trusts Is against merely the business ma
chinery employed to take from the public
what the government in its tariff laws says
it Is proper and suitable they should have.
1t Is the government, through Its tariff
laws. which plumbers the people. and the
trusts, etc, are merely the machinery for
doing 1t. tsB'i' rom
The statements made pefons 1.-THE DOM
mittees in Congress and tho speeches
against the Sugar Refining Company are
absolutely devoid of truth-Eftter1y nm
worthy of credit. The intention of Con-
gress. however, to enact something into
law contrary to what the sugar refining
industry properly required, resulted ire
spective of the great industry and injustice
done. In the passage Of the existing sugar
schedule.
whether the Sugar Refining Company
has been benefit or injury to the COM
munity can be best expressed in a tarIe;
showing the prices for considerable period
prior to the formation of the trust and for