The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-06-15
Statement That Il Intended to Make
the Sugar Trust Appear a.
Great Public Benefactor.
FOR PROTECTING HOME AND HA.
wAIIAN SUGAR PRODUCERS, -,
And Not Anording the Rehners . Bet-
ter Chance TO Enrich Themselves
corporations Defended.

WASHINGTON, June 14.--Mr. Henry q.
Havemeyer president Of the American su-
gar Refining Company was examined to-
day by the Industrial commission In con-
nection with its investigation OF trusts His
testimony related almost wholly 10 the sugar
industry and he opened with a Vigorous at
tack upon the customs tariff. which, he de-
clared. was the mother Of all trusts be-
coming such by providing ''inardinate pro-
lection to manufactured articles" This at
tack was made in a written statement which
the witness had prepared before making his
appearance before the committee. and which
he read in a ringing voice. The text OF the
statement follows:
The mother of all trusts is the customs
tariff bill. The existing bill and a the pre-. ne.
formation Of all the large trusts, with very
few exceptions. inasmuch as they provide
teresys OF the country, sugar refining ex-
cepted. Economic advantages incident 70
the consolidation OF large interests IN the
same line OF business are great incenuve
to their formation, but these bear very
insignificant proportion to the advantages
granted in the way Of protection under the
There probably is not an Industry that
requires a protection of more than 10 per
cent. ad valorem. and 1t Is to obtain what
tarfff that leads to the formation of what
are commonly spoken OF as trusts
10 PER CENT. PROTECTION.
with protection to an industry not ex-
ceeding 10 per cent. all menace to the come
munity of trusts would cease. This 10 per
cent. would represent the difference In cost
of production. and likewise act as pro-
lection against surplus products Of foreign
countries being dumped In our local mar
kets. thereby interfering with the regular
and economic working of our industries.
Any advantages that might accrue then TO
such combinations they would be fully en-
titled TO. and the public would not be dam
aged thereby. as any expansion of price
would be met by foreign competition ana
relief
Il have said that sugar was an excep-
tion. The rate of protection on sugar 10
an eighth of a cent per pound, which In
about 3is per cent. ad valorem, and il is not
this and foreign countries. The least il
should have is per cent, or. in specific ng-
ures. Y cent per pound. The sugar re-
what form its organization. is entitled to
adequate protection. II any industry IL.
There are at least 10000 people dependent
upon ii. What II pays or has paid TO ito
stockholders in the past represents nothing
more than fair return on the capital In
vested, considering the extent Of the busi-
'"rhe United States tariff bill. in assessing
about $40 per ton imported sugar. pays into
annual crop. 10000 tons. sl00c0.0o0; TO the
Hawaiian Islanders. probably represented
tons Sn tse say loo tons nroP pro o.
duced elsewhere in the United States, 81
Here YOU have sa4oco.ooo extracted from
the people Of the United States for the
sake OF getting the revenue which so per
ton on foreign sugar provides. Ihis IL mere
Of it--and Its effect upon the people. In
fact, the tariff bill clutches the people by
the throat and the governors and attorney
generals OF the several States take action.
not against the causes, but against the ma
chinery which People employ TO rife the
publcs pocket.
IMMATERIAL TO THE PUBLIC
There appears TO be In the public mind
distinction between robbery by an indi-
vidual and that by a corporation. What IL
commendable in an individual appears TO
be dishonest in corporation. I maintain
that It is irnmaterial to the public In what
form business is done-whether by an In
dividual. firm, corporation or even trust
These are merely forms Of conducting busi-
ness. or, in other words machinery for the
operation of business. 1t is the duty Of the
government to see that under the tarifr
laws they enact this machinery cannot IN
its actions result TO the detriment or i'm
poverishment of the public.
1T would have been very easy and prop
er for the government to have put corr
responding Internal revenue tax on sugar
customs duty and have these $24. 10000 which
now go into the pockets OF a few indvid-
Of the whole people. II no expenses OF the
government needed 10 be provided for ana
protection 10 American industries was de-
valorem on all manufactured products would
have settled the matter. There IN every
reason why II revenue is desired, that with
a duty on raw materials OF foreign produc-
tion, corresponding internal revenue tar
should be levied on similar products and
limited 10 an additional 10 per cent.
Il repeat that all this agitation against
trusts Is against merely the business ma
what the government In its tariff laws says
is proper and suitable they should have. IL
is the government through its tariff laws.
are merely the machinery for doing Il.
The statement made before the commit
the sugar refining company are absolutely
devoid OF truth-utterly unworthy OF credit.
The intention OF Congress. however. 10 en-
the sugar refining Industry properly re-
Quired. resulted. irrespective OF the great
injury and, and Injustice done; in the passage
Whether the sugar refining company has
been benefit or Injury TO the community
the, prices for considerable period PRIOR
TO the formation or the trust and for q cor
responding period subsequent. The differ-
ence since It's formation shows an acvan.
tage TO she consumer-note that: Consumer
-of over one-eighth OF cent per pound
What the sugar company has dtsburse0
in dividends has been not because OF any
extreme protection under the tariff, but out
OF conditions perfectly legitimate and COM
nendable. Their record shows conclusiyoly
that no advantage has ever been taken By
the company OF any protection I'm exco60
OF the 5 per cent. claimed, l. @, Y cent p0P
pound ander the tariff.
Tariff laws should not AFFORD protoction
exceeding 10 per cent. TO any trdnsyTs =