The Winslow mail., 1899-07-06
HAVEMEYER VS.. HAVEMEYER.
The Sugar MaEnate Takes a Shy at
Protection Every Trust
Save His own.

III. o. Havemeyer's arraignment of
the trusts and his condemnation of dis
eliminating tariff laws will meet with
cordial approval by the masses who
have been plundered by both these
agencies and robbed in the name of
enterprise and law. But his view is
too circumscribed when he says:
81 repeat that all this agitation against
trusts is merely the business machinery
employed to take from the public what
the government in it's tariff laws says it
is proper and suitab 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 it,
Some trusts, like the Stanard Oil and
railroad combines, exist independent
ly of tariff laws, and their destruction
calls for remedial legislation along
other lines than the tariff. The inter
state commerce laws, if enforced, would
afford partial but quite substantial re-
lief. But the republican party is bound
in chains of adamant to the wheels of
plutocracy and therefore the attorney
general of the United States has been
instructed by his superiors not to act
to the financial loss of those corruptive,
destructive aggregations of capital
which dominated and caused the cleo
ton of his political aster-
Very se1fish1y, but iIIogica11y, Mr.
Havemeyer pleads for an incr eased tar
IiatCWCJCI pICad3 IOI III IHCI tuDod car
iff duty on refined sugar. He says:
The rate of protection on sugar is an
eighth Of a cent per pound, which is
about three ard one-half per uent, ad
valorem. The least it should
have is eight per cent The sugar
refining industry of this country, no mat
ter what form its organization, is entitled
to adequate protection, if any industry is.
There are at least 100000 people depend
ent on it,
Yes, and there are over rs, COO, 600 peo-
pie compelled by government robbery
to swell the enormous profits of the
sugar trust. One-eighth of a cent per
pound. seems to be a trihing matter, but
when it is considered that the output OF
the sugar trust is approximately 10,-
600, 900 pounds daily, we find that the
people are robbed by this same one
eighth of cent per pound of over
$4,000 every day in the year.
1t is surprisingly refreshing to be
informed that the 'trusts are und>r
no obligation to the states which ere
ated them, but, on the contrary, the
states are the benefciaries of the con-
descending trusts!"
After informing an anxious world
that trusts are the logical results of
discriminative laws, Mr.. Havemeyer
gravely says:
I'm these days there are twoforms, and two
only, of monopoly. One, that which results
from a patent and copyrights. 1t is uni
versally recognized that this is in the in
terest, not against the interest of the pub
lie. The other, that which comes from
unfair tariff discrimination. Tariff
for the purpose Of equalizing against for
eign bounties does not need to be
justified"
Oh, no! Tariff that favors the sugar
trust is beneficent, but all other kinds
are robbery, according to Mr.. Have
meyer.
Is it not about time that the people
were done with expert testimony by
those who confess they are plunderers
and robbers? H. 0. Havemeyer stands
before the world to-day self-convicted
OF conducting a legalized robbing and
plundering machine-a trust. His
parting advice is for the farmers to or
ganize trust for their own protection.
With his assertions that there are
trusts and there are not trusts, Mr..
Havemeyer has shown how trusts blind
those who conduct them and sweep
them and theirs away. Let the people
come by their own.-Ckicago Demo-