The Washington times. (Washington [D.C.]) 1901-1902, 1902-05-17
John Oehler Cannot Recall
Whether Coffee Company
or Trust Footed Bill.
EX-SENATOR HENDERSON HEARD
Charges Refining Company With Under
hand Methods in Competing With Beet
Sugar-Says Rebate Would Deal In
dustry Hard Blow.

John Oehler. a New York printer. was 6
witness before the Senate Cuban commit
| tee yesterday for the purpose Of identity
ing a pamphlet entitled Facts Abou,
Sugar." compilation of newspaper clip
pings favorable to the sugar trust.
Mr.. Oehler had printed 100000 copies
of the pamphlet on the order Of o. W.
Donuer. advertising manager Of the Amer
lean Coffee Company. He had also print
ed galley slips of most of the articles for
mailing to newspapers
He did not remember whether the bill
for the printing had been paid by the
coffee company or the sugar trust.
Former Senator Henderson Of Nebras-
ka. counsel for the beet sugar refiners,
told Of the fight last fall in the Missouri
River country between the sugar trust
and the beet sugar men, and explained the
contracts made by the latter with the
jobbers. There was some prejudice. he
said. against beet sugar because 1t was
thought not to contain as much saccha-
rine as cane sugar. and for that reason
beet had sold usually for 10 cents hun
dred below cane.
Terms of Contracts.
Those contracts had contained an agree
ment to sell beet sugar at 20 cents
hundred less than the open price of cane
sugar. The sugar trust then reduced the
price from 5.37 cents to 81 cents: but as
this was not the open price he had ad-
vised his clients not to meet the cut
The beet sugar could not be sold, and
was therefore stored. and If they had not
been able to borrow the money with
which to store 1t the beet factories would
have been forced into bankruptcy.
AT the same time the cut was made by
the trust, the latter had inaugurated a
campaign OF education by publishing in
the papers of Nebraska, Colorado, and
other States in the Missouri River terri
tory articles favoring the trust. and mis-
representing and attacking the beet in
dustry. In his opinion the movement was
a deliberate attempt on the part Of the
trust to break down the beet sugar in
dustry Of the West by forcing them to
sell their product at ruinous prices.
Motives of the Trust.
AS to the motive Of the trust, he be- |
lieved the great increase and growth of |
the beet industry was worrying the trust. |
and therefore this attempt to injure and I
cripple ii. There was in his opinion |
foundation for it, because with favorable /
conditions and legislation all the sugar |
used by the people of the United States |
could be produced in the West.
Senator Plat asked what effect that |
immense development would have on the !
price OF sugar to the consumer. Mr.. Man.
derson replied that 1t would reduce the
cost. That was the history of all Ameri- |
can Industries. Ingenuity had cheapened |
the cost of production, and therefore the |
price to the consumer. The industry, |
however. would depend absolutely on the
Of the present tariff on |
sugar.
Asked what the effect would be on
Cuban sugar. Mr.. Henderson said the
of Cuba would undoubt-
eddy raise the price of labor in the island
and consequently the cost Of producing
sugar.
Would Seriously Cripple Industry.
The proposed tariff reduction Of 20 per
,e'nt in the pending bill might not destroy
he beet industry. but he believed 1t
would seriously cripple it. That industry
perhaps more than any other was the
result Of legislation by Congress. Every
ariff bill had encouraged 1t. and any at
empt now. direct or indirect. to injure 1t
would to his mind. be almost criminal
md the worst blow the country could re-
GIVE.
He did not blame the sugar trust for
lighting the beet industry by any honora-
lie means, he said. but he did not believe
n underhand methods. In his opinion the
could better afford to pur-
base the trust refinertes at their market