Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-06-15
Mr.. HnYemeyer on the stand.

dealing with the subject of trusts, made a
very interesting witness yesterday bis
mood was mixture of cynicism and frank
ness. and he appeared to take the country
on his knee and give it a little plain in
struction about methods of business his
employment of epigram was unusual for a
man of everyday affairs He did not mince
his meaning. The individual is nothing;
1.-THE Trusts are not indebted to the states,
but the states TO the Trusts Crush COM
petition" Get out of the consumer all you
can These in substance, and other say
ings Mr.. Havemeyer INDUCED in with an
air of ease and confidence probably not un-
becoming or unauthorized in one of his
success and his freely expressed contempt
for law and authority.
The Sugar King opened with challenge.
He characterized the protective tariff as
'.the mother of ali Trusts" And yet. as he
proceeded. he gave a qualified approval to
protection But he would limit it by a gen.
eral rule. AS matters now stand some in
dustries enjoy too much protection, and
some too little. The Sugar Trust, for an
instance, enjoys too title protection. Unin-
formed clamor has prevented Congress
from doing the right thing in that case
Other industries are fostered by the govern
ment to the point of depressing the people
This, Mr.. Havemeyer thinks, should be
remedied, and the remedy he proposes is
the reduction of all protective schedules
which he thinks are excessive. The highest
should not be above ten per cent ad valo-
rem.
MIR. Havemeyer speaks so exclusively for
sugar, he fOrgets that these tariff schedules
have been prepared after a careful inquiry
by competent men into the needs of the diff
ferent industries to which they refer. In
no case does any industry enjoy the pro-
lection for which 1t applied. The expert
ence of the Sugar Trust is not exceptional
" in that regard Congress has always re-
yised the figures of those most directly in
terested, and in that way tried to equalize
among the industries the benefits of the
protection policy. So that what Mr.. Have
meyer has to say on the subject of pro-
lection in general is entitled to no special
consideration against the judgment of
those who have made as close a study of
other industries as he has made of the
sugar refining industry. As he asks con-
sideration for what he says about sugar,
he must allow equal consideration for what
well-infOrmed men say about other lines of
business.
Mr. Havemeyer is aggressive defiant and
Illogical His attack on the bridge which
he credits with having carried him over
VIII serve good purpose. The sugar re-
inning industry is. he asserts, the product of
protection, but as it now enjoys a MONOPOLY
OF the sugar refining business of the coun-
try its great desire is for free raw ma
terlal But why cripple destroy as it
generally applies, the policy which has done
so much for the country simply because
one industry, having outgrown its benefits.
insists on using cOrruptly and oppressiyeIy
the great prosperity it has extracted from
that policy?
In effect, Mr.. Havemeyers testimony is
an attack upon the protective system 1t
paints the Trust in its most abhorrent
coiors, plcturing II a destroying monster
with no sentiment, cruelty crushing the
individual and killing competition by
temporary reduction of prices at the uIti-
mate expense of the public. After drawing
this portrait with bold strokes, Mr. Have
meyer describes the Trust as the product
OF the protective system If it be true that
Trusts are the fruit of protection. there
would be no Trusts save in those articles
which enjoy the benefits of the high tariff
system and the strength of the Trusts
would be in proportion to the benefits
granted As matter of fact this is not the
case. The Sugar Trust itself is by no
means the creature of protection The
most powerful and insolent of all the
trusts II is now growing and lighting the
protective system as actually applied in
practice to its own existence. 1t alleges
that the protection is worked down to al
most nothing in its case and complains that
the tariff rates are expressly for the bene-
tit Of the Hawaiian and Louisiana sugar
growers at the expense of the public.
II the protective system were thrown
over and succeeded by free trade, under
Mr.. Havemeyer's reasoning all Trusts
would at once cease. The plain principles
of economics teach that such a proposition
is ridiculous A survey of the commodities
guarded by the protective rates will show
at once how slight is the connection be-
tween the tariff and the Trusts. 1t is evil
dent that this powerful Trust is discon-
tented at existing conditions 1t would ex-
ist with or without protection as long as
the state and federal statutes permit its
continuance Failing to reap the harvest
OF protective rates for which it confesses
now to have pleaded in vain, it displays
its temper by seeking to cast the odium of
responsibility for its existence upon the
very system which 1t Is forced to admit as
operating to its disadvantage.
Richard i. Bland.