The Van Buren press., 1899-06-17
ATTACK ON THE TARIFF.
President Havemeyer of the Sugar
Trust Before the Indus
trial Commission.
IN ATTACK ON THE CUSTOMS TARIFF.
He Declared 1t to be the "Mofher Oh
IN uprns,s.-suraris is Discriminate
ed Against in the Interest OF 'he
Louisiana and Other Cane 9row-
ers.

Washington. June 14--Mr. Henry U.
Washington, June 15.-Mr, Henry u
Havemeyer, president OF the American
Sugar Refining Co., was examined by
the industrial commission IN cohhec-
ton with its investigation OF tf1sts.
His testimony related almost wholly
to the sugar industry, and ne opened
with a vigorous attack upon the Gus
toms tariff, which he declared was the
mother of all trusts becoming SUN
by providing ian ordinate protection
to manufactured articles. 1his at
tack was made in written statement
which he read.
sugar Discriminated Againss.
Mr.. Havemeyer asserted that tar
iff of ten per cent. was rs high as any
tariff should be. He eontended that
sugar is Disseminated against in tfe
tariff in the interest Of the Louisiana
cane growers, the beet sugar makers
and the sugar growers of the Hawaiian
islands. To these interests, he con-
tended, the United States contributed
S24 .00o. 900. which was taken out OF
the pockets of the people.
Protection on Sugar.
The protection on sugar amounted
to only a of a cent pound, or about
3 1-3 per cent. ad valorem. 1t ought
to be twice as much. What the SUI
gar refining business has paid, or is
pcying, represents nothing moro than
an adequate return on the capital in
vested" he said. What congress
should have done was to have put an
internal revenue tax on the American
production of sugar.
INSTRUMENTATION. in Congress.
The representations made in con-
gress concerning the trust, he de-
clared, were untrue, and if ii were
fact that the people suffered from
trusts, they must blame the protective
tariff system beyond the * of a cent
given. He admitted freely that the
company did all possible to advance
its own business interests. He did not
think the corporations were under
obligations to the different states, but
that the reverse was true.
Capital and Labor.
capitol and labor" he stated, would
all adjust themselves II let alone. The
only way to prevent competition, Mr..
Havemeyer testified, was to keep
prices at minimum-not necessarily Y
in the interest of the consumer, but as
a matter of business. He referred 10
the trust laws of some of the states
as premium dishonesty, and speci-
fying the Missouri law. There were
always two classes of people in COM
munity-the industrious, and those
who wanted to live off them
Methods OF the Trust.
The witness spoke freely of the
methods of the company in preserving
and extending its business. OF the ear
| lier history of the enterprise he said
he did not fight the Harrison refinery
| at Philadelphia. But he had to fight
| Spreckels when he came into the field
with his enormous plant. We had to
do that or suspend our dividends. We
went into the fight and we kept it uI
until we got the refinery"
The Late Drop In Sugar.
The late drop in the price of sugar
has been caused by the starting O!
new refineries, which had threatened
to take so per cent. of the business
ut was part of our policy to put
prices down and let the opposition
take the result, whatever it may be
Every sale made by the opposition dis
places so much of the American com
pany's product" he said. 1--WE must
protect our own business"
Ne Motives 6f Philanthropy.
Mr.. Havemeyer then went on to say
that what the company did it did not
do from motives OF philanthropy
that it had its own shareholders to
protect. Anybody can buy our stock, -
he continued, "and as consequence
the public owns the stock. But |
doubt whether anyone would want
any of the stock of the independent re-
| fneries."
1