The Maryville times. (Maryville, Tenn.) 1884-1944, 1899-08-19
HAVEMEYER'S BREAK
A Hot Shot for the Sugar Trust
Magnate.
His laundering Attack on the Tariff
Was Obviously Prompted by His
Failure to Get the Protection
He Wanted.

during Cleveland's first anti-tariff adj
ministration, long before either the
Dingley or Mckinley bills had been for
mulated. The following facts in regard
to it are found in the Financial Chroni-
Gle, Investors Supplement of April Fl,
1899, page 119:
The American Sugar Refining company
was organized in 1887 In January, 1891,
a charter was obtained from The state of
New Jersey. The capital stock was orig
inally $4,000, 000 which was increased in
January. 1892, to $75,C00,OOO in order to Sc
cure the capital stock of four Philadelphia
refineries and a controlling interest in a
Baltimore refinery. The Claus Spreckles
refinery in California is under lease for
ten years to the Western Sugar Refining
company, of which the sugar trust owns
one-half the capital stock In 1897 1t was
officially stated that the sugar trust sup
piled II per cent of the refined sugar in
the United States, as against 80 per cent.
formerly.
1t will be noticed that the sugar trust
was organized during Cleveland's de-
moralized, low tariff term, when the
Morrison and Mills bills were under
discussion. The Mckinley bill was
signed by President Harrison October
1, 1890. That bill put sugar on the free
list and protected our sugar producers
by bounty of two cents pound on
the home production.
The sugar trust obtained it's charter,
as per the Financial Chronicle, in 1891,
and increased its capital stock in 1892
from $50,0OO,00O to $75,000OOO, for the
purpose of monopolizing the refining
plants, with the result that it had $751;
100000 of common stock, on which it
paid four per cent. dividends in 1891,
1917 per cent. in 1892, 21H per cent. in
1893 and 12 per cent. since 1893. On
36,96S,OOO of preferred stock it has paid
seven per cent, cumulative dividends
annually.
In fighting protective tariff as he
is doing Mr.. Havemeyer seems to be
what in common parlance is styled a
"sorehead." He is undoubtedly mad all
through because the protectionists will
not grant him one-quarter of cent q
pound duty on refined sugar; and be-
cause they have only permitted him to
have one-eighth of cent pound he
thinks to get even with them by attack
ing and denouncing the whole system
of protection as the mother of all
trusts" The government would serve
him as he deserves to take him at his
word, so far as his trust is concerned,
| and remove all duties on the refining
of sugar. That is, the duty on raw
cent a pound; in refined sugar it is one
eighth cent pound more-placed there
| for the benefit OF reineries. Allowing
the consumption of sugar in the United
States to be 2,00O,OOO,0oO pounds year,
one-eighth cent a pound would be So
100000, large portion of which would
inevitably find its way into the pockets
of the sugar trust. Now, if this extra
duty for refined sugar is taken off, for
eign refiners can send their product
here, and the sugar send their product
here, and the sugar trust, according to
the following quotation from Mr.. Have
meyer, would be smashed. He was
| asked
| Q. AS regards the pres ent tariff on sugar
| supposing that were to be removed, what
would the effect be, the tariff on refined
| differential? A. 1t would knock the sugar
| industry silly.
| Q. You think If this differential were re-
| moved now A. Qnterrupting) 1t would
| infiict terrible and infamous wrong upon
100000 people dependent upon it, merely
| trucking to miserable bugaboo here of q
| public clamor about trusts
Q. You think that this industry is prac.
tically dependent upon this one-eighth pei
| cent. differential duty? A. 1t is indissolu.
bly,. Let there come the slightest cause fol
any interruption of the refining business
here, so that the profits could advance, anc
we would be inundated now with foreign
product. because one-eighth stands in the
way. 1t is not enough; we ought to have
| one-quarter.
If We consume 2,00O,O0O,0O0 pounds OF
sugar yearly, and pay five cents pound
for it, it amounts to $100,0OO,OOO an.
nually; and if this money goes into the
hands of our people it helps to make
the nation rich. But if it goes to pay
for foreign sugar we are impoverished
by it. On this account it is far better
for us as nation to have protection
even with trusts than no protection
without trusts. The trust we should
have in any event, as is abundantly
proved by this same sugar trust having
been established under q would-be free
trade administration, as was also its
twin trust, the standard oil and the
trusts across the water in free-tradt
England.
The trouble with Mr.. Havemeyer is
that he is one of those grasping mer
who wants protection for his specia
business, but does not care fig whether
anybody else has any or not. He says ter
per cent. duties will protect all of oul
industries. He sneeringly says: -
man cannot expect to have himselet
continually wet-nursed by the govern
ment," and yet he is whining because
the government declines to wet-nurst
his overgrowr trust with new one
eighth of cent a pound nursing bot
tie. He also says:
The sugar refners have never had fai
show at the hands Of the ways and mean
committee. When l came before that com
mttee as an individual they were willing 4
give me anything; but when l came as tn
representative of the American Sugar Re
timing company, of five times the impor