Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1905-03-30

ENShihb OAhy AUs
he reason that Mr.. McStocker has mis-
quoted the market price Of sugar at
he time my cane was delivered to the
mill april Ord, 1903,) is It necessary
Tor me to dwell upon this subject or
ask space In your paper. However, l
believe 1t is space used to good pur.
pose and which has created considera-
Bile Interest among the readers Of The
Bulletin. Mr.. McStocker says:
1.-THE bandying Of figures back and
forth will produce nothing Of value
unless deducted from similar basis
on both Sides"
Further along In his communication
OF March 14th. he says:
THE Mill received, the apparent
price in New York at the time Of Mr..
Items sale being s%c., S67.5O. less 81
or lilo Of cent to the Trust, or
s65.5O. The Olaa report shows $16.21
shipping charges. ETC., consequently the
price at the mill was 1920"
In my original communication, !
stated that at the time Of the delivery
of my cane at the mill the New York
price was $685. less 81. to the Sugar
Trust and I still maintain that l am
substantially correct. This statement
can be verified by reference to the mar
ket quotations Of April 3rd. 1903. and
will undoubtedly appear among the
fles Of the Bulletin and other news.
papers throughout the Territory. I
also stated that the cost of putting the
sugar on the market at San Francisco
after being put on board cars at the
mill was as follows:
Freight to Hilo. ............e zoo
Freight to San Francisco. ...... 500
Commission (on New York
price) S per cent. $40
I0tal ................v 6IV
The market price at San Francisco
is about $3.50 less than New York; II
being freight between the two places.
Now II my estimates to San Francisco
(SS.70) is added to the freight to New
York (37.5O) we have $500. or within
one cent Of what Mr.. McStocker says
II the marketing expense. II he will
deduct that from the New York price
and not from the San Francisco price
shall have no objection. thus:
New York price, $685.. less $500
to the Sugar Trust .$71.36
Marketing expenses In New York 1920
The price at the Mil. ..$55.15
Not t49.29 as stated by Mr.. McStocker
(March 1D. 1t is necessary to give
the date Of his statements as he prac-
tically admitted that my figures were
substantially correct. February 18th,
and In his reply used the figures, $71.35
as the New York price after deducting
the $500 for the Sugar Trust. On
March IA, after making calculations on
the erroneous basis of $65.5O, he admits
that the Mills profits was 3776 to
which II he will add the difference
resulting from correction Of the error,
$5.s6. he will find from his own calcu.
lations that the Mills profit from ton
OF my sugar was 1882 which, in my
original statement said was $17.37.
Thus. after stretching every point
in favor Of the mill to the breaking
limit my estimate has not been mate
rally reduced.
1t Is easily apparent that the mills
profit is enormous and generous, while
my profit is proportionately small and
penurious. get $1.00 while the mill
takes $500. That's about the size Of
1t. II this rule were reversed It would
be more nearly equitable and just.
When Mr.. McStocker says: st may
have taken 81 or tons to the ton Of
sugar" It's nonsense. when the Olaa
Report shows that the whole Olaa crop
averaged less than tons Of cane to the
ton of sugar and am confident he will
not undertake to say that my cane was
below the average. My cane averaged
81 tons per acre while the plantation
average for the same crop was less
than 81 tons.
! have made liberal allowances for
the mill In my estimates. In the re.
port OF the Eva Plantation as to aver
age cost per ton Of sugar. crop Of 1901
(the year previous). the following
Items appear AZ covering the cost OF
manufacture:
NH expense ..,,,......S2.+6
MIL repairs ..,,,,..,,,, "a
Making q total OF e2.s7 have es'
timated $500 for the olaa Company,
u will 10 noticed that Mr.. Mcstoeker