The Washington times. (Washington [D.C.]) 1901-1902, 1902-05-02
Mr.. Havemeyer ConfesseS
to Individual Ownership
of Plantations.
APPARENTLY VERY FRANK
ton Has Purchased But One Tenth of
Cuban Sugar Crop-A Smaller Hold
ing Than Usual.

American Sugar Refining Company, whic
is commonly known as the sugar trus
yesterday appeared before the subcom
nittee of the Senate Cuban Committee.
Mr.. Hayemeyer was apparently yer!
frank. as he usually has appeared when
ever he has testified before Congressiona
and other committees in the past. As TAI
as could be judged from his manner and
testimony he told very freely all there
was TO tell of the present holdings of the
trust in Cuban sugar crops and Of the
relations of the company to the owners
OF Cuban sugar lands.
His statement was a most interesting
one, but it was not in any way sensa-
tional. II was to the effect that the
company this year has purchased not
much more than one-tenth of the sugar
crop. and that it has purchased much
less than usual.
f. Ownership Of Lands.
As TO the ownership of Cuban lands. he
said that his company has no interest
In any of them, but that personally he
has holdings in different companies.
Mr.. Havemeyer did not finish his state
ment. He promised to continue it next
Monday. Mr.. Arthur Bonner, treasurer OF
the company, and Henry c. Mott, buyer
of raw sugar for the concern. were also
present. One of these gentlemen is ex-
pected to be witness today.
MIR. Eavemeyer began his testimony by
stating. in reply to questions from Chair
man Plat, that the American Sugar Re-
fining Company is located in New Jersey,
where its principal Offices are. The COM
pany has one refinery in New Jersey. two
in Massachusetts,. three in New York. two
in Philadelphia, and one in New Orleans.
Sugar Trust Purchases.
"How much Cuban sugar, IL any. have
you purchased and do you now hold in
Cuba?" asked Mr.. Plat.
/. Answer-Fifty thousand tons.
This was about ten days supply for the
trust, Mr.. Havemeyer said. He then gave
the figures at which that sugar had been
purchased. beginning at 1.9 cents per
pound. In February, to 1.93 cents on March
IL. and down to LIS cents on April 22.
The price now is Is, but his company
had purchased none since the 25th.
From January / to April 30 the total
Cuban sugar purchased by the trust had
been 80 900 tons, OF which about half had
been shipped and the remainder was
stored in Cuba. The latter had not been
shipped because of the pressure to sell at
the out-ports, as he called the ports in
Cuba outside OF Havana. This pressure
was due to lack Of storage facilities. The
s-ust had taken the sugar from the
out-ports because it was cheaper than
hat off af
Those $4,000 tons, he asserted, repre-
scented all the interests of the so-called
trust In Cuban sugars. directly or indi-
rectly. The trust had made no advance
on sugar held in Cuba. As compared with
the purchases of Cuban sugar by the COM
pany in former years. this years pur-
chases we're small. In the same period
OF 1891 II had bought l55, 900 tons; in 1900.
1s3. 900 tons; in 1899, 1l7.000 tons; in 1898,
ia. 600 tons; in 1885 11s 600 tons: in 1894.
32l 900 tons; in 1888 246.o00 tons, and in
1892. 254, 900 tons.
The purchases this year were therefore
about one-third of those in 1892. The fact
was, the Cubans were holding their sugar
for the higher price it would bring under
the proposed tariff concessions by the
United States. The company had not
brought from Havana the sugar stored
there because the sugar at the out-ports
had to be moved at once owing TO lack
Of storage facilities. For the same reason |
|, was sold at the out-ports at lower |
prices. and, of course, the company took |
advantage OF that fact.
Storage Charges.
Asked as to the operation OF the storage |
,harges. Mr. Havemeyer said the charge 1
vas on its entry into the warehouse and |
10 vi
It the out-ports was also due to the drop
n prices of the beet sugar in the worlds
markets, and not being able to store it at
ne out-ports they were compelled to sell
or what they could get.
The price of raw cane sugar, he de-
Jared. was not controlled by the trust. but
" the price of beet sugar at Hamburg
he price in that city of beet sugar had
one down steadily of late years, owing
o overproduction.
Senator Platt-It has been stated that
he trust would be in a position, If re-
uction in tariff were granted by the
United States. TO compel the planters to
elf at the price fixed by the trust, and
hat the trust and not the planters would
eceiye the benefit Of the reduction.
Mr.. Havemeyer-There is not a word OF
ruth in IL.
In reply to questions by Mr.. Plat the
illness stated that the trust purchased
) per cent of the raw sugar imported '
ito the United States. including that from .
laval and Porto Rico. and produced so r
err cent OF the 100000 tons OF refined :,
lear consumed in the United States. The
liter included domestic and foreign beet l
Igar. Louisiana cane and other raw cane a
igars imported.
The IS per cent of raw cane imported p
hp aI hU ind /
mics These independent refneries wera
Ie Revere at Boston. The National o.
ew York. which included the Yonkers II
I'd the MollenhOwer refineries; the Ar az
ickle plant at New York the NcCahar hi
inery st Philadelphia, the CogsweIl al
anderson and Gramercy refneries at h
ew Orleans, and the Cunningham re | q
Iery in Texas There were also two
ants in California, the Croker and tho W
reckels. di
With the exception Of the Snrcckels
art. in which They had joint ownership n
e trust had no connection with any OF
e independent redneries. They were alb
lutely independent.
The Fight Against Beet Sugar. R
senator Teller took up the fight be-
cen the trust and the beet sugar pro-
GERS in the Missouri River district.
. Havemeyer could not furnish the
nts in that territory at which the =,
st had sold sugar at 81 cents q pound. 40
promised 10 produce the information a
or. That fight he said. had been
ught about by the attempt Of the beet 80
to drive the rust out OF the terri m,
= entirely.
he beet men had made contracts with | rec
grocers, which he considered in re- cal