Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1905-03-08
McStocker Replies To Item
Presenting Colonizing Scheme


other makes SO long as II is itself pro-
tected against loss and guaranteed n
fair profit. This, In the case OF The
mill. should range between a minimum
Of per cent and maximum of IS per
cent, an average Of IL per cent, and
likely in all probability to obtain.
Thus, you may say the profit to tho
mill is a fixed, and that to the planter
,, an elastic one based on the theory that
no contingencies exist as in the case
OF the planter. such as climatic insect
pests, etc, although as matter Of
fact numerous contingencies do exist
putting the two enterprises practically
on an equal distribution of profit with
perhaps an increasing advantage to the
planter as a compensation for the bare
possibility that the minimum profit to
the mill being fixed his 1.-THE planter'sl
profit might sink below that point, tho
advantage on his part again being.
however, that being the planter, he is,
outside Of climatic conditions and In.
sect pests, the arbiter OF his own des.
tiny; that is, he plows. plants. hoes,
cultivates, fertilizes and strips with.
out an intermediary and consequently
reaps as he sows, and should get the
best results.
The point at issue between Mr.. Item
and myself was, was the entire profit
properly and equally, or improperly
and unequally distributed between tha
two parties to the contract? tried to
show 1t was. Mr.. Iten contended and
still contends that 1t was not
Let us for moment re-capitulate.
The mill received, the apparent price
In New York at the time of Mr.. Items
sale being 3%c.. 367.5O. less 81 or ITO
OF cent to the trust, or $3.50. The
Olaa report shows 316.2l shipping
charges, etc. consequently the price
at mill was $49.29. without consid.
ering the questions of repair account,
etc, the cost to the mill for contain.
ers. manufacturing. transportation.
harvesting, etc. was approximate
$10.49. leaving $3.50. From this they
paid Mr.. Item for cane which may
have run Sh or tons to the ton of
sugar S31.04 leaving the profit to the
mill $776 instead Of $17.76 as claimed
by Mr.. Item, or about per cent on the
mills investment In those equipments
which came in direct contact with the
planter.
Turning to the planters side taking
Mr.. Items figures, we find he was paid
sass per ton Of cane for an article
which cost him SAFE, or a profit of
Sl.16 per ton of cane. This multiplied
by the number OF tons to the acre har.
vested from his fields, think he stated
SO, gives $6l.4S per acre and on an
investment of
Purchase Of land, per acre. ....$ $50
Clearing (Mr. Items fgures) per
acre .................. lO0.OU
Buildings. etc. estimated. per
| acre ................. 6O,OO
Total per acre ........... .$l53.5O
or about 40 per cent for years or 20
per cent against 10 per cent to the mill
on its investment.
The true theory, to my mind, Of the
profit sharing contract is outlined in
the above. A planter can clear, pillow,
plant, cultivate, fertilize and strip q
moderate area of land, but he cannot
without difficulty and undue expense
harvest and deliver consequently the
ennnhinn nAtpt phnuIl ha ptrt. nj mo
Harvesting, the planter bringing tho
cane to maturity, the mill taking II
from that point supposedly being equip.
ped to perform that service in the
most economic manner.
At this point the question may be
raised by the planter, the mill can har'
vest my cane cheaper than my neigh
bors so why should | not get higher
price for my cane? This question Is