Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1911-06-23
STORY Of BEET
SUGAR INDUSTRY
CLEANED UP hALF.MllllON ~
SELLING CANE PLANT TO
FIRST TRUST
MAD TO FIGHT FOR ExlSTANCE
cssfalp Agreement Abolished When
DsnItentlary Menaced.-Woo'en
Trust Is De-
PENDANT.

washington, June - NC oIoAJ "
the birth of the beet sugar industry In
America. its trials and temptations
Svar since, and how the Oxnard Broth
ers were enriched by more than hal,
4 million dollars profit through "the
little transaction" of selling their cane
sugar refinery in Brooklyn to the first
sugar trust" in 1887, were the fea
lures in the testimony that Henry T.
Oxnard gave to the house sugar in
vestigating committee.
Mr.. Oxnard assigned as his reason
for attempting to introduce the MAX
ing of sugar from beets in this coun-
try the sale to the trust" of his re-
fnsyy at Brooklyn and his belief that
tho Introduction of the beet sugar in.
dustry would be profitable and patri.
otto" He described the building of
the first factories and then told the
story of the organization of the Amer
ican Beet Sugar company.
OF that &2O,000,O00 company he said,
the Oxna1d Brothers at one time own
ed so per cent, but now possess only
three per cent. He would not admit
that this stock was watered, testifying
that the valuation of the property was
about $12,OOO,OO0 while the preferred
stock today was worth about $5,OO0.-
900 and the common about $7,500,00O.
He was unable to tell why the capital
izstion was fixed at s2O.0OO.000. saying
that that was tho bankers business"
Admits sharp Rivalry.
The relations of the beet sugar in
dustry, and particularly the American
Beet Sugar company with the Ameri-
can Sugar Refining company was the
subject Of many questions.
Representative Madison asked Mr..
Oxnard "if In reality the American
Sugar Refining company had not tried
to use its power in 1901 to drive the
beet sugar refiners out of business by
unfair competition, that is, cutting
prices below cost IN the Missouri riv-
or territory"
At first the answer was indefinite,
but finally the witness said: Il think
It 10 fair presumption that it was de-
signed to drive US out"
Mr.. Oxnard said that the only time
the American Beet Sugar company had
any agreement with the American SUI
gar Refining company was in 1902,
when the former became the Selling
agency" of the latter. That contract
was cancelled, he said, when Wayne
MacVeagh, lawyer, in 1906, gave an
opinion that it would send them to the
penitentiary If they continued It.
He protested against the reduction
Of the tariff on raw sugar but added
that he would leave 1t to the 'refiners"
to fight for the duty on refined sugar.
American WooIen Co. Defended.
Defense of the American Wooden
company, resolution for the investi:
CATION of which is pending, was made
In the house by Representative Weeks
of Massachusetts,, who declared that
the company could not be considered
trust under any definition of monop-
oily he had ever heard.
The wooden schedule occupied the
house all day. Representative Weeks
and Longworth were among those
who spoke against the bill, and Rep
resentatives Macon and Oldfield, both
of Arkansas, and Ayres of New York,
for it.
The American Wooden company"
said Mr.. Weeks, "in no way controls
more than 10 per cent of the indus.
try of the country 1t does not con-
troll the price of wooden products in
this country nor the price of the labor
employed by the industry 1t has new
er paid exorbitant profits, is not con-
trolled by millionaires and has never
sold its products abroad cheaper than
at home. The people are getting
the benefit of competition in the wool
en- industry"
Mr.. Weeks declared that the stock
of the company. was distributed among
1850 holders, the average holding
being only Sc shares.