The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1911-06-17
BY AsaOeIatsd Press.


washington, June 1s.-Half million
dollars profit was garnered by the OK
nard brothers almost over night when
they put their Brooklyn sugar refinery,
valued at 100000, into the sugar
trust" in 1887. according to the testi-
mony of Henry T. Oxnard, the presi-
dent of the American Beet Sugar Com
pany, before the house sugar trust IN
vestigating committee today. Had the
Oxnard's held their %trust" certificates
until today the witness said, the deal
would have netted them 100000 be-
sides the dividends on the certificates.
They sold the certificates two years
after they received them for S750,O0O.
I'VE were rather glad to sell out"
said Mr.. Oxnard. "Cut throat compe-
tition existed in those days and unless
the beet sugar business turned out as
we thought 1t would, 1t was little
doubtful about our keeping going"
The witness said the capitalization
Of the Brooklyn factory was only $780,
900 but that the plant was worth $780,
600.
you would have been satisfied to
get out what you had put into 1t,
wouldn't your" inquired Chairman
Hardwick.
sponse.
"On this little transaction you
cleaned up half q million. Now. how
much water was in the other deals
How much did Captain Thompson
maker
II do not know. We were probably
treated little better than the others"
"why?"
'Urhey wanted the name" said Mr..
Oxnard "They really bought out the
Oxnard brothers"
ENTERED OPPOSITION.
He said he did not stay with the
Strust" but went abroad and after
studying the beet sugar industry IN
Europe, returned to America to engage
81 tfIat BUSINESS in earnest opposition
to the trust.
Mr.. Oxnard explained that he and
his brothers. Robert, Benjamin and
James G., were interested in the Amer
ican Beet Sugar Company but at pres
ent they owned only about 1000 snares
of preferred and 5000 to 10000 shares
of common stock. Their largest hold
ings, he added, were in a louisiana
cane refinery in which they had IN
vested about one million dollars.
"There had been big tariff on sugar
for 25 or 30 years." explained Mr.. OK
nard. II thought it would be profit
able and patriotic to introduce the beet
sugar business into this country
The witness said the American Beet
Sugar Company had never had any
connection with the American Sugar
Refining Company except contract In
1902, under which the latter became
the selling agency of the former.
"Didn't 1t say where your sugar was
10 be sold?" inquired Chairman Hard
mo" replied Mr.. oxnard. There
was a provision that 1t was to be SOLD
everywhere except in New England.
How about this phrase in the con-
tract?" and Mr.. Hardwick read from
an alleged copy Of the contract the
following:
Care being taken by us (American
NBeet Sugar Company except when
necessary to avoid your markets.
"Well, that was written in there oy
the lawyers. They said 1t was not
against the Sherman antitrust law.
\ AS a matter Of fact It never amounted
to anything for we sold where we
wanted to-"
"Why did you make it?"
well there was that war OF sugar
companies once and then we wanted
the advantage Of sales by their
brokers'"
The witness said the contract was in
existence only three years although 1t
was to run ten years.
"You lived up to the contract, didn't
you?'' asked Chairman Hardwick.
well. l suppose So"
'They lived up to it?'
"They really had nothing to do"
"Why did you go into 1t tlen?
Wasn't 1t because of the Amer lean
Sugar Company's cutting prices In
Missouri river territory in 1907"
It don't know that was the reason.
II may have been one"
Chairman Hardwick wanted to know
why the contract was abandoned.
z"I ceased to be president in 1906,
said Mr.. Oxnard. My brother sue
ceeded me and Colonel Duvall came on
the board. The colonel was familiar
with the railroads and the Sherman
law. He said, here, this violates the
Sherman antitrust law"
III. o. Havemeyer, of the American
Gugar Refining Company, wanted the
contract to be continued through the
year but Mr.. Cutting said no, this
contract ends today So that was