Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-01-13
II. This Company not a Monopoly.

Another misrepresentation, to which it seems
advisable to call attention, is the common
belief that your company exercises mono
poly in the sugar trade. When in 1884 the
tativey decided in United States VS.. knight,
ct a., 1856 u. S., 1, that your company was
not a monopoly, under the Sherman Anti
Trust Law, this company had much larger
percentage of such trade, but, with the
intense and ever increasing competition
which has since prevailed. the figures of
Messrs. Willett l. Gray. the recognized sugar
statisticians. show that your company does
not now refine more than 4S.5 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 granulated sugar
directly from beets and. thirdly, the factories
of Louisiana and the South. which extract
sugar from cane grown locally. Your COM
o. ~ is not interested in any way whatever in
this third class of establishments. OF the Il
cane sugar re6neries. with an estimated max
imum capacity of daily MEETINGS of 33OOO.OOO
pounds, your company operates Z rehneries
and has an interest Tin each case less than
majority in refineries. and it has no in
terest whatever in 10 refneries. Between
these l00eDeQQeQL reuQeTIeS duu LuOSc OpcI-
ated by your company, the competition IS
continuous and severe. While the number OF
your refineries in operation is less than at
times in the company's history, due to the
consolidation of some refining plants, yet
the increased capacity of our other rehnerles
has caused a substantial increase in the act
ual capacity of your cane rehneries. This
Increased capacity. however, cannot at pres
emit be fully utilized as the total capacity OF
all the re6neries of the United States St. IS
IL, -, Of m
sumption for the year 1909 shows approx
mately an increase of $3.50 over the preyi-
GUS year. The MEETINGS of the American
Sugar Refining Company show an approx
mate increase of 1.179o over 1908.
Of the GA factories which produce sugar
from beets. with an estimated aggregate
daily capacity of 47.7OO tons Of beets and
period Of operation of from IS to 100 days
each year your company is interested IN 90
factories. with daily slicing capacity OF
about $500 tons, and has no interest in 81
factories.
III. Tariff Duties on Sugar.
There also exists widespread belief,
which. however. is mistaken one. that the
refining of sugar derives large and excessive
benefit from protective duties. ;,
All the raw and refined sugar Imported
into the United States from foreign countries
Is subject to duty. In this manner the Gov
eminent derives very large revenue he:+ ana ;nl
dustry is benefited. This Company alone has
Maid to the Government in duties on importa..
tions in fourteen years the large sum OF
$685. 100000. ,u.,
Inasmuch, however, as the relative duty
IN raw and refined sugar Is so adjusted as to
have to the re6ner a MARIN of protection
of only seven End one-half cents per 1OO
pornds of refined snsar. or. barely more than
Inc cent per pound. 1t is evident that con.
frarv to the general impression, the protection
to the refining industry is exceedingly small
The duty paid on raw SUGAR imnor+ed into
this country is substantially refunded BY the
Government on any equivalent quantity OF
refined sugar rroduced therefrom which is
this has given rise to unfavorahle criticism.
as the company arnears 10 sell s"oar for
EXPORT at a price lower than that CHARGED
the domestic eo~~"~.r. Thas fs not the case.
TIE co--na~v r~"eives s1'hs|a~|'a'v f"e sams
price for $ product whether sold abroad