The San Francisco call., 1899-06-22
Answers the Sugar
Trust Magnate.
FALSE ATTACK ON THE TARIFF
WOULD DESTROY THE BEET
SUGAR INDUSTRY.
Says the Big Organization Is Seeking
to Divert Attention From It's Re-
fning of Foreign Raw
Material.

Henry T. Oxnard, president Of the
American Beet Sugar Producers Asso-
citation, has prepared reply to H. o.
Havemeyer's recent argument before
the Industrial Commission. in which he
fatty contradicts many of Mr.. Have
meyers statements and accuses that
gentleman of seeking to destroy the
American beet sugar industry in order
to foster the refineries that handle for
eign raw material, besides attempting
to divert public attention from the su-
gar trust by attacking the tariff. His
statement in full is as follows;
In Justice to the home sugar producers,
and as president of the American Beet
Sugar Producers Association ! wish 10
call attention to a few Of the lnaccuTd,
cies in H. Q. Havemeyer recent anu anu
wonderfully fallacious argument before
the Industrial Commission at NashlnS-
ton. Mr.. HaVemeyer makes claims Wnlch
he cannot in any way substGntiate. A falr
sample of his illogical argument IS round
in the first line which forms the oasis
of his whole argument. VIZ: Inc Gus
toms tariff is the mother or al trusts; =
Mr.. Havemeyer says that the tarln IS
responsible for all large trusts because
they are inOrdinately protected, except
the sugar trust. The two largest, in fact
the pioneer trusts in this country, as
every one knows, are the Standard on
and sugar trusts. The Standard Oil Com
paQ% does not ENJOY us nlOnOpOiS from
the tariff, and the American Sugar Re
fining Company, according to Mr.. Have
meyer. receives only 312 per cent protec-
tion How absurd then, is it to say that
the tariff is responsible for trusts. But
right here [ wish TO dispute Mr. Have
meyers statement regarding the proteC-
tiOn afforded to sugar refining. claiming
that it only receives protection OF 512
per cent. In the Dingley tariff act sugar
refining receives a protection of an eighth
of cent per pound. and the testimony
hRf
Committee, of which Mr.. Dingley was
chairman. brought out the fact that su-
gar In modern refinery, with the best
machinery, well located, can be reflned
at a cost of about quarter of a cent per
pound. We therefore find that sugar re-
fning under those conditions is receiving
protection of not 312, but 80 per cent
ad Valorem, based on the cost of refining
sugar. The error in Mr.. HaVemeyer's
argument is that he arrives at the pro-
lection to sugar refining based on the
value of refined sugar In other words,
basing the value at cents per pound
and receiving protection of only 1213
cents. Mr.. Havemeyer would be right in
saying that he receives only a protection
Of approximately 4 per cent; but MIR.
Havemeyer does not produce the sugar,
and his only interest is in the cost of
making raw sugar white, or in other
words, refining raw brown sugar, and his
protection must be based on what the
cost is of refining instead of the value of
the sugar which brings his protection
from + per cent up TO 40 or 50 per cent.
The protection granted the sugar pro-
ducerS who make the article OF sugar
itself is 80 per cent on the cost of raw
sugars to-day. or identical with the pro-
lection granted the sugar refining com
panies.
Should Mr. Havemeyer's selfish sugges-
tions be adopted it would wipe out en-
tirely the American home sugar industry
and allow Mr.. Havemeyer to continue re-
fining foreign raw sugars.
We must look to the reasons which led
Mr.. HaVemeyer to make this wonderful
foil
duction In the first place he knows per
fectly we'll and can read the handwriting
on the wall which says that the prOduc
ton Of sugar from sugar beetS carried out
on the lines on which the industry is
being developed in the United States will
finally result in producing the sugar con-
sumed by the people of the United States
in thousand beet sugar factories dotted
all over the Union and render useless the
refnerieS on the coast. These factories
will employ a hundred men where one is
employed to-day by the sugar trust and
give the farmers the benefit Of a protec-
tive tariff on a new and profitable crop.
which IS a desirable end to be obtained
for the agricultural classes, who are not
usually benefited by any tariff protection.
Mr.. Havemeyer, as president of the
American Sugar Refining Company, IS
perfectly right to do everything in his
power to protect the industry he repre-
sents. and his suggestion that raw sugars
which are his raw material-should be
let in duty free is undoubtedly on the lines
most favorable to the sugar trust.
He suggests that sugar be admitted
duty free from Cuba, knowing full we'll
that this would at the present time pre-
vent the development of the home beet
sugar industry, which is a new industry
in this country. only having had a prac-
tical existence since the Mckinley act
but most promising one, and one which
will. If fostered during the next ten or
fifteen years. supply the United States
with their own sugar instead of sending
abroad over one hundred million dollars
for this agricultural article of daily use
Another reason for Mr.. Havemeyer's at