Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1899-07-05
CARTER on HAvEMG YER.

Senator Thomas II. Carter was
interviewed in Washington recently
by a correspondent Of the American
Economist on the assault of Presi-
dent Ha\emeyer of the sugar trust
upon the protective tariff system. II
will be remembered that Havrmeycr
in his testimony before the lndustrial
Commission vigorously denounced
our present tariff law and furnished
n little ammunition to the Bourbon
press. But men who know Have
meyer like n book and know exactly
where the shoe pinches the great
sugar King are being heard. Among
them IN our W senator. In the
interview Mr.. Carter gives a solar
plexus jab in the following terse sem
tenres:
Yes, | observe that Mr.. Havemeyer,
the commanding genius Of the Amer
lean Sugar Trust. declares himself
opposed tn the Protective Tariff. In
So doing he disclOses "a spirit of patri-
Otism and philanthropy very credi-
table and emincntly worthy of the
source In his testimony he declared,
in substance, before the Industrial
Commission, that the Protective
Tariff was the foster mother Of the
trust; that II really assisted In Great
Ing and maintaining the whole
family Of trusts. regardless of their
special fields of operation In view
of This statement how truly touch
ing and pathetic it is to observe the
heroic attitude of Mr.. Havemeyer
when he announces his opposition to
tMe Protective system. He mani
testify desires the unwary to believe
that he earnestly seeks the destruc-
kton of his own property In the Sugar
Trust by having the Protective Tariff
destroyed. 4 have no doubt that
Mr.. Havemeyer il opposed to the
Protective Tariff system. but his
opposition does not arise from the
belief In his mind that Protection to
American labor and American indus
tries constitutes the vitalizing force
behind the Sugar Trust. II he be.
Iieyed that system vas necessary or
useful In the operation OF the Sugar
Trust he would undoubtedly defend
its continuance ipstead OF counseling
its repeal.
The fact Is the Protective Tariff
system has for it's underlying pur-
pose the creation Of diversified indus
tries throughout the entire country.
In the execution Of this purpose the
Dingley Tariff law, against which
Mr.. Havemeyer pronOunces so
strongly, contemplated by its pro-
visions the development Of the best
sugar Industry in the United States,
and the sugar schedule was arranged
with a special view to the accom-
plishment of that end. The trainers
of the law have not been disap-
pointed. The beet sugar industry
has been steadily growing, and 1t IL
against the continuance of this
growth that Mr.. Havemeyer directs
his opposition.
The American Sugar Trust can de-
stroy any single aggregation of capt.
tai invested In a competing business
at any particular point in the coun-
try by selling sugar below cost with
In the legitimate limits OF its COM
petitor's market. With the small
beet sugar manufactures scattered
ali over the country, the trust can
not compete with the same advant-
age, because 1t would be compelled
by virtue of the widely scattered
competition to reduce the price OF
sugar every where below the cost Of
production. While Mr.. Havemeyer
could destroy one competitor at one
place, he finds ltimpossiblet to destroy