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

WASHINGTON, ID. T., FeD. It.
The Hardwick sugar trust investi-
eating committee, after many weeks
of open hearings here and In New
York, and almost continuous work
since last May, reported to the house
today that sugar trust existed.
The report, which was signed by all
the members of the committee, Re-
publicans as well as Democrats, made
no recommendation as to how the al
legged trust and those responsible for
II should be dealt with, suggesting
that this phase of the situation be
handled by a standing committee Of
the house.
As to the effects of the combine on
the cost of sugar to the consumer,
the committee expressed the belief
that monopoly kept the price up, but
made no attempt to fix accurately the
extent to which reasonable prices
under competitive conditions were
exceeded.
The report condemns the original
promoters of the sugar trust, but de-
ncribes the $4,000 present owners OF
the stock of the American Sugar Re-
fining company as innocent pur-
chasers of the profitable stock which
was unloaded on them by the few
men who organized the sugar trust"
Henry o. Havermeyer Is credited
with creating the organization and OF
him the report said:
THAT this colossal speculation has
come through with success and today
stands ON an established business
basis Is due to the genius of its ar
straining powers Of society as ex-
pressed In the law
I'VE find strikingly developed IN
the sugar industry several evils"
said the committeee," aside from the
primary one of sitting competition,
which seem to demand careful con-
sideration and remedial legislation
by congress"
The report reviewed the prosecu-
tons OF the sugar industry by the fed
eral government since the first sugar
combine In 1887. or the suit brought
against the sugar trust In New York
I'm November, 1910, the report said:
1T Is but simple justice to say that
this bin seems to be both carefully
and ably drawn, comprehensive and
well adapted to the purpose at which
II aims. II Is now pending In the cir
cult court"
| The committee said that since the
organization of the American Sugar
Refining Company in 1891 1t had re,
peatedly violated the Sherman law.
AT, the time II was chartered, the
Sherman law had been In force more
than six months, and both its organi.
cation and existence, coupled with It's
methods of doing business. was, as
the testimony seems to Indicate Il
your committee. palpable and con
timing violation of the Sherman law
and yet no serious attempt was made
tprior to November, 1910 to invoke
the civil remedies provided by the
antitrust law against the corpora
ton. II also Is to be noted that the
government has not even, mp to the
present time. so far as has appeared
made any effort to enforce the pena
provisions of the Sherman low"
The committee followed instruc
tions In reporting whether the exist
ence OF trust had any tendency L
decrease the price of sugar cane an,
beets to the producer. Il reported
that the Louisiana cane growers wa,
Disseminated against by an arbitrary
ruling of the trust, but that the Haw
allan planter was independent. O
the beet sugar growers the repol
said:
Your committee reports that tn.
evidence taken does not disclose com
binations between manufacturers II
the beet sugar industry that hay,
caused or had a tendency TO caus,
decrease In the cost of sugar beets.
|