Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1912-02-27
SUGAR TRUST
REPORT MADE

WASHINGTON, D. c., Feb. H.
'rho Hardwick sugar trust" invcsti.
Eating committee, after, many wcckF
Of open hearings here and in New
York, and almost continuous work
since last May. reported to the hous,
today thai sugar trust existed.
TIL" report. which was signed by at
III" members of the committee Re
puhiCnns as well as Democrats. made
no recommendation ~ to how the al
/ legged trust and those responsible iOl
II should he dealt with, suggesting
that this phase Of the situation b,
handled by standing committee OI
the house.
As to the effects OF the combine OI
III" cost Of sugar 10 the consumer
the committee expressed the belle
that monopoly rep the price up, but
made no attempt to fix accurately tho
extent to which reasonable price
nudcr competitive conditions were
exceeded.
TIL" TCIurt condemns the originu.
promoters OF the sugar trust, but dc.
rCrihCs the Is COO present owners al
the stock of the American Sugar Re-
filming company as innocent pur.
Chascrs of the profitable stock which
was unlOadcd on them by the few
mon who organized the sugar trust.
Henry O. HGvcrmcycr is credited
with creating the organization and OF
him the report said:
"rhat this colossal speculation has
come through with success and today
stands ON an established business
basis * due to the genius of its ~.
Chtioct rather than Ia any Of the re,
slraininG powers OF society rs OK.
pressed IN the law"
I'VE hnd strikingly duvclnrcd ~
lh" sugar industry several evils
said the COmmittCCC," aside from the
primary one of sitting competition
which seem to demand careful con.
Sidcralion and remedial Legislation
by congress-"
The report reviewed the prosccu.
tons ni III" sugar industry by the fed.
Cral government since the first sugar
combine in 1887. OF the suit brought
against III" sugar trust in New YOrF;
in November. 1910, the report said:
1T Is but simple Justice To say that
this bin seems to be both carefully
ana ably drawn, comprehensive and
welt adapted 10 the purpose at which
II aims. II is now pending IN the cir
cult court"
TIL" committee said that since the
organization Of the American Sugar
Refining Company in 1891 II had re.
peatcdly violated the sherman law.
"A the time II was chartered, tho
sherman law had been IN force more
than sin months, and both its urgan,
2ali"n ana existence, coupled with is
methods of doing business. was. aa
the testimony seems to Indicate tu
N"uI committee, II palpablc and con
ilnlIing violation of the sherman law.
ana yet no serious attempt was made
irrinr 10 November. 1870 To invoke
the civil remedies provided hy the
antitrust law against the corpora
tinn. II also is to BE- noted that the
government haS not even. M To the
present time. SO far M has appeared.
made any effort to enforce the penal
provisions Of the Sherman low"
The committee followed instrIIc.
lions IN reporting whether the exist
enc" Of n trust had any tendency Ia
""cr"aS" the price of sugar cane am.
h"cts to the producer. II reported
mat III" Louisiana cane growers wa,
Disseminated against by an arbitrary
ruling of the trust. but that the Haw-
"Ilah planter was independent OF
he beet sugar growers the ropo. t
said:
"i"ur committee reports that the
"NII"nCC taken does NOT disclose com
hinnit"ms between manufacturers in
III" beet sugar industry that have
caused or had II tendency to cause
Il decrease in the cost of sugar occts, ID