Kingsbury County independent. (DeSmet, Kingsbury County, S.D.) 1894-1929, 1911-06-23
COAST REFlNER!ES NOT
BOTHERED By TRUST

~
--~- Y.
washington, June 1b-Effort to dis
cover whether non-ccmpetitive zones
aad been established by the American
Sugar Refining company in an effort
o control prices, marked the resump-
don of the sugar trust inquiry today.
edwin +. Atkins. acting head OF the
sugar corporation. who only became an
official or the company w years ago.
said he was unable 20 answer from per-
ional knowledge many of the question
put to him.. !.
Mr.. Atkins declared, however. that
,the American Sugar Refining company
owned practically 8 majority OF stocH
m the sugar refineries IN California and
that 1t did not attempt TO compete with
hem. He gave as the reason for this
abandonment OF the coast business the
freight rate difference OF a half cent q
pound on sugar transported from the
Eastern reineries. This. he insisteds
VAS the principal reason for the failure
of competition.
Holdings In the West.
Questioned by Representative Malby.
Of New York, the witness said that 50
per cent OF the Western Sugar Refining
company In California, was owned by
the American Sugar Refining company
While the Spreckels family owned the
2ther SO per cent The American also
owned. Mr. Atkins said, 40 per cent In
the Alameda Sugar Refining company.
What the purpose OF the purchase OF
his stock was, Mr.. Atkins was IN
sble TO tell the committee.
do you have any understanding that
here should be no competition" asked
Mr.. Maiby.
so far as my knowledge goes there
s not the slightest"
The sugar tariff, according to Mr..
Atkins. enables the Pacific coast sugar
yefineries TO make a larger margin or
profit than the eastern ref1neries. Mr.
Atkins said the price OF was the
came on the Pacific and the Atlantic
coasts: but the Pacific manufacturers
are able TO sell as far east as Chicago.
while the eastern ~reineries cannot ship
further west than Kansas City and
Omaha.
FREQ Sugar From islands.
The reason Is that the Pacific COAST
has free raw sugar said Mr.. Atkins.
The %reflneries there get the Hawaiian
md Philippine sugars without duty.
hundred pounds OF Cuban sugar"
The sugar ought to be lower on
he Pacific coast?' asked Representa-
live Raber, OF California.
Yes said Mr.. Atkins, who added
that he knew nothing of the conduct
81 the far western companies. He did
pot know Mr.. Spreckels, he said, nor
what interest the latter had In various
ugar companies OF the west.
II have not been able to get any in-
formation from any of the companies
IN which we are largely interested,''i
Iaid Mr.. Atkins. I'VE are minority
stockholders and they refuse to tell
us anything about their business
Gayley on Stand Again.
The assertion that the formation on
the United States Steel corporation I'M
1901 had put an end to pools and agree
men In the industry. was made by
James Gayley, former vice president oft
The corporation today to the House
steel rust" investigating committed
Mr.. Gayley I'm telling of conditions ext
sting before that date, denied that
combinations or agreements existed in
he steel trade today. Although at first
opposed TO the plan. he now thoroughly
approved h understandings reached
letween the steel manufacturers at
he conference dinners inaugurated by
Judge l.. H. Gary, head OF the corpora
ion.
Mr.. Gayley said that prior to 1901
here We're agreements by which manu-
~'acturers were apportioned shares OF
lie steel business and those who failed
% get their allotted share We're taken
Iare of with a proportion OF the general
profits.
Fines for Violations.
Mr.. Gayley declared that for a long
ime before 1897, the price ae steel rails
vas practically uniform at SIS a ton.
II represented, he said. an understand,
ng between manufacturers OF rails and
he railroads as to an equitable price.
existed between rail- makers because OF
! desiie to produce the best possible
ails. He also admitted that previous
o 1900 agreements we're made between,
he various manufacturers regarding
ether steel products I'm which the Car
iegie company participated. These,
agreements provided fine for violation.
What body imposed the fines" Rep
iesentative Young, of Michigan, asked,
II do not know Mr.. Gayiey replied.
ITO whom We're the fines paid?"
II imagine that they were divided
)ro rata among the different compan-
es.
When asked who could explain the
agreements and fines, Mr.. Gayley said
re presumed Charles NJ. Schwak, the
president, or f. A. Peacock, the vice
PRESIDENT OF the Carnegie company,
.ould tell.
Mr.. Gayley admitted that before 1910
here were agreements as TO the pro-
portion OF business each manufacturer
vas to have.
IF the companies did not get their
'hare." asked Mr.. Young. were they
given the profits anyway"
"That is my understanding of It,"
THAT there were any such agreer
men now. Mr.. Gayiey denied.