The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1910-01-13

PANY TO THE STOCKHOLD-
Frs.
The Directors herewith submit their re-
port for the year 1909. While the assets and
business of your company are the property of
It's stockholders, yet your Directors recognize
the legitimate interest which the public has
in a business organization which deals TO q
large extent in a necessity of life further
motive for this report is found in the fact
that II seems TO be the only method by which
this company can correct the widespread
Misrepresentation and unjust criticism to
which II has been subjected. 4 business cor
poration can have no asset more valuable
than the goodwill Of the public and that
goodwill can best be gained by explaining to
the pub the nature Of any existing mis-
apprehension as TO its character and opera
tons.
I. ow rship of the Company.
It Is commonly supposed that the shares of
your company are owned by a comparatively
few residents of New York City The fact is
that the average holding OF stock by any in
dvdual Is less than fifty shares. The ma
jority of the stock Of your company is held in
New England, and its value aud stability as
an investment is best evidenced BY the fact
that your shares are largely held by executors.
administrators, trustees and other fiduciaries
Its stable value an investment is also
attested by the fact that there have been no
substaI changes in the stockholders for a
very lone period. The number Of our stock
holders Of common and preferred stock is
1884.
In view Of the preponderant holding Of
stock by New England shareholders, you will
be asked to increase the Board of Directors
by two members. and for these positions the
names of Mr.; Edwin f. Atkins and Mr..
Samuel Carr, both Of Boston, and both we'll
and fayoraby known in business circles. will
be submitted for your approval Another
vacancy in the Board has been created by the
declinatiOn of Mr.. Charles II. Senf 10 serve
another term, and 10 fill bis place a number Of
influential stockholders have suggested the
selection Of Mr. f. s. Marston. the President
of the Farmers Loan & Trust Company, Of
New York, one of our oldest and most con-
4 -vatiVe financial institutions Among other
changes. it may be noted that your Board
has selected James NJ. Beck, formerly Assis-
tant Acknowledgement of the United States
as the new General Counsel for your Com
pany.
II. This Company not a Monopoly.
Another misrepresentation. to which it seems
advisable TO call attention, is the common
belief that your company exercises a mono
poly in the sugar trade. When in 1894 the
tatiyeIy decided in United States vs.. knight,
Ct al, 1856 L. s, !, that your company was
not a monopoly, under the Sherman Anti
Trust Law, this company had q much larger
percentage Of such trade but, with the
Intense and ever increasing competition
which has since prevailed, the figures OF
Messrs. Willett * Gray. the recognized sugar
statiSticians. show that your company does
not now refine more than 1875 per cent. Of
the sugar consumed in this country, and this
notwithstanding the fact that the MEETINGS OF
your company have been well maintained,
There are in the United States three es-
Sentially different classes OF establishments
producing sugar; firstly, the refneries which
draw their raw sugar almost entirely from
foreign countries and the dependencies of the
United States secondly, the beet sugar fac
tories which make white graduated sugar
directly from beets; and thirdly. the factories
of Louisiana and the South. which extract
sugar from cane grown locally. Your com
pany Is not interested in any way whatever in
this third class of establishments. OF the u
cane sugar rehneries, with an estimated max
imum capacity Of daily MEETINGS Of 100000
pounds, your company operates 1 rehueTles
and has an interest Gin each case less than a
majority in 4 refneries. and It has no in
terest whatever in 10 refneries Between
these independent refneries and those oper-
ated by your company the competition IS
continuous and severe. While the number OF
your refneries in operation is less than at
times in the company's history, due 10 the
consolidation Of some refining plants, yet
the increased capacity Of our other refneries
has caused a substantial increase in the act
nal capacity Of your cane rehnerles This
increased capacity. however, cannot at pres
ent be fully utilized as the total capacity of
all the refneries Of the United States is
much in excess Of consumption. The con
sumption for the year 1909 shows approx
mateIv an increase Of 2.25Gr over the previ-
Gus wear. The MEETINGS of the American
Sugar Refining Company show an approx
mate increase of 1.lIC6 over Jus.
OF the 81 factories which produce sugar
from beets with an estimated aggregate
daily capacity of 47,70O tons Of beets and
period Of operation of from - TO 100 days
each year your company is interested IN 80
factories. with q daily slicing capacity OF
about %, 800 tons, and has no interest IN 81
factories.
III. Tariff Duties on Sugar
There also exists n widespread belief,
which, however, is a mistaken one. that the
refining of sugar derives a large and excessive
benefit from protective duties
an the raw and refined sugar imported
into the United States from foreign countries
Is subject to duty. In this manner the Gov
eminent derives 4 very large revenue tllib
incidentally the domestic cane and beet IN
dustry is benefited. This Company alone has
paid 10 the Government in duties on importa-
fions in fourteen years the large sum or
S335000000.
Inasmuch however, as the relative duty
on raw and refined sugar is so adjusted as to
leave to the refner a margin Of protection
of only seven and one-half cents per 100
mounds Of refined sugar, or, barely more than
1H6 cent per pound it is evident that con-
trarv TO the general impression, the protection
TO the refining industry is exceedingly small
The duty paid on raw sugar imported into
this country is substantially refunded by the
Government on any equivalent quantity OF
refined sugar produced therefrom which Is
exported A misunderstanding in regard to
this has given rise TO unfavorahle criticism
as the company appears TO sell sugar for
EXPORT at a price lower than that charged
the domestic consumer. This is not the case.
The comparv receives substantially the same
price for IS product whether sold abroad