Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1911-06-13
SAYS SUGAR TRUST
IS LOSING GRIP
ON BUSINESS
HOUSE COMMITTEE HEARS
INTERESTING TESTIMONY
Acting President Declares
| American Refining Company
Is Producing Gradually De-
creaSing Proportion Of Sugar,
my Morning Journal Special Lsas.A wirsl

IBy Morains Journal Special LeassA wirel
Washington. June l2 The house
committee of investigation into the
so-called sugar trust affairs today re-
qured Acting President Edwin +,
Atkins of the American Sugar Refin-
ing company TO answer questions re-
garding its attempts to acquire the
Pennsylvania Sugar Refining COM
nenv ~ PHILADELPHIA. Counsel James
IL. Beck for the company, Intellectual
ly appealed to tho committee not to
so into this matter on the ground
that former officers of the company
are awaiting trial In November on q
charge of conspiracy to acquire the
Pennsylvania property and that theil
interests would be prejudiced IL the
committee pre-judged the case.
Chairman Hardwiek ard the COM
mittee overruled this objection, saying
the committee was directed to investi.
gate every phase of the compan-'s
operation and that there was no in
/ tention of pre-judging the case.
Mr.. Atkins testified he had NJ
direct knowledge regarding the Penn.
sylvania transaction which he sale
was negotiated under the presdenc,
of Henry .. Havemeyer. He said HI
| protested years ago to Mr.. Have
meyer against the policy of the com
pany in acquiring beet sugar plants
The company officials point out thai
the company has undergone thor
ough change of management and oi
policy since the IIavemoyer regime.
Discussing the relations between
the company and the beet sugar In
terasts. Mr.. Atkins said;
II asked Mr. Havomeycr II II wal
to be his policy to build up the bee
sugar industry at the expense OF tn,
cane sugar refining industry. Hi
answer was ovasiye and | told hin
that If that was to be his poliays
would sell my stock in the Ameri
can Sugar Refining company. | subse
quently did sell considerable OF m,
stock"
! Asked why ho was opposed to thu
company extending into the bee
sugar field, MIR. Atkins declared tina
he foresaw in the western field . bee
sligar industry growing which woul'
become a formidable competitor o
the American company. and, as al
investor. he did not think II goos
| proposition to aid rival enterprise
to position where Il would have AZ
important effect upon the business o
the industry In which he was ilnan
| tally interested.
Mr.. Atkins stated that he did no
know al the time he talked to Mr.
Havemeyer that the former head o
the sugar trust had already invested
In western beet sugar concerns.
Mr.. Atkin testified that the Amerl
can Sugar Refining company's stocl
Is scattered all over the globe, will
1859 stockholders In November
1910. The average individual hold
ing of stock was said to be less thai
fifty shares and more than $500
shareholders own ten shares or un
der.
Mr.. AtlSin submitted a statement L
show that during 1910 the compan'
manufactured slightly more than a
Iper cent Of the total consumption o
sugar In the United States while tn
beet sugar companies MANUFACTURED
fourteen per cent. OF the twenty-on
cane sugar refineries I'm the Unitel
states, the refining company own
seven directly or through subsdiar
companies. and has a stock interest
less than n majority, in four OF tn,
sixty EIGHT factories which produce
beet sugar. the American eompan,
is interested through stock ownership
in thirty-three.
"While in 1900" the statement said
the American refined about 67.S pc
cent of the sugar consumed in th'
United States In 1909, only 40 IA pc
cent in 1910. 42.14 per cent. TIL,
statement referred to the governmen
litigation against the company.
I'm the bill brought by the govern
ment to dissolve the company"
read. mo act of any officer of tn
company since January |, 1908 /
even alleged as being in restraint o
trade. Many of the averments In th'
governments bin are neither inaccur
ate or have reference to transaction
ended prior to January |, 1908, or ad
Judged as lawful in the proceeding
brought in 1892 by the government
aaginst this company in which tn
United States supreme court sustained
the legality Of the company as thei
constituted.