The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1911-06-12
President of the Sugar Trust
Appears Before the Probe
Committee and Talks about
Big Combine.
TRUST WAS FORMED
TO CHEAPEN COSTS
Atkins Says, but Also Admits
the Suppression of Compe-
tition Might Have Been
One of the Reasons.
(National News Association


Washington, June 12-The house
committee appointed to investigate the
sugar monopoly began it's hearings to-
day. Edwin F. Atkins. acting presi-
dent of the American Sugar Refining
company, testified that when the mer-
ger of seventeen sugar refiners was
accomplished in 1887, nine hundred
thousand dollars was paid for the Bay
State Refining company. whose prop
erty was estimated to be worth only
half million. Atkins admitted that
while the suppression of competition
may have been the object of the mer-
ger, the principal object was to manu-
facture sugar more cheaply. The sug-
ar business during the competition
prior to 1887 was a money loser, he
said.
Atkins said he had been with the
American company since it's forma-
ton. Before that time, he said, he
had been interested with his father
in the Bay State Refining company.
In 1887 Henry Havemeyer purchased
the Bay State company along with
about sixteen other sugar refineries.
he said, in telling of the company's
growth. Did Havemeyer merge these
seventeen refineries to cut off compe.
tition?" asked Chairman Hardwick.
Il presume" said Atkins
Can you give the percentage OF
the sugar business handled by these
seventeen combined companfes?"
| II can not" said the witness"
"As remember it, there were five
or six companies that did not 90 into
the Havemeyer combination"
Atkins said that the Havemeyel
company was a holding company and
acted as trustees" for the various
subsidiary companies. From 1887 tc
1891, said Atkins. those comprising
the Havemeyer company, were called
trustees" In the last named year the
, American Sugar Refining company
was formed and the trustees stock
was exchanged for the corporation
stock"
why did you change the form o1
organization" asked the chairman.
ION advice of counsel, think" sait
witness.
And you exchanged stocks, ceasinf
to be trustees and becoming a corpor
ate American Sugar Refining com
pany?"
"Yes"
| Atkins could give no definite de
tails as to the capitalization Of tht
various companies. He said he esti
mated the Bay State company proper
ty to be worth about 100000, but the!
were paid about 100000 in stock fo
it in the combine. He doubted tina
the Bay State would have sold ou
had it not been for bonus of 100000
"Is 1t not fact that the seventeen
companies brought into this combin.
produced 80 per cent of the refined su
gar in the United States?" asket
Representative Madison.
/ II can not answer that" said AT
kins.
1 "Is it not also true" asked Madison
that after the formation of the Amer
lean Sugar Refining company. that tn
combine controlled 9S per cent of tn
business?"
81 can not say. l think that Is al
exaggeration," said Atkins.
Representative Madison asked Sc
ries of questions in attempting t
have the witness answer that tn
Havemeyer combination was forme
to eliminate competition. Mr. Atkin
sidestepped any such broad admis
sions, but persisted in saying that tn
combine was prompted ito manufas
ture sugar more cheaply." He admit
: ted that the sugar refiners were eT
gagged in luminous competition befor
1887.