The Washington times., 1913-05-27
THE PRESIDENT AND THE SUGAR LOBBY

Members of Congress have introduced bills to re
strict and control lobbying. The President has fur
nished, in his castigaton of the sugar lobby, flint
illustration for the use of gentlemen who wan
Hobbies controlled.
This newspaper has repeatedly expressed th'
opinion that lobbying is not disgraceful or oppro
brious business when it is Straightforward lobbying
When it is the honest effort of real representative
Of an industry to get their side of the case before
Congress, it is legitimate. But when lobby i
put forward to pretend to fight in one cause, wher
in truth it is fighting for another, that is egitimate
dishonest and deserves to be exposed.
The trouble about the sugar lobby is that nobody
has any confidence in anything that any sugar lobb,
says. No matter whether If calls itself the do
mestic Sugar Producers" or the Committee o
Wholesale Grocers," what it may be, nobody know.
whether is safe to believe that it is what it claim:
to be.
For example Four years ago the beet sugar
lobby was the most active and important one the
job in Washington. Beet sugar is a Western indus
try, and the West was a Republican West at thai
tme therefore beet sugar was the interest that had
most influence with Congress- Louisiana cane was
not so powerful.
Today the scenes have shifted. Louisiana cane
represents q Democratic section, and Democracy is
in control of the Government; so Louisiana cane is
put forward a more active interest in opposition
to tariff reduction
Now, what is to be believed about the real affilia
tons Of these various lobbies? Four years ago the
Michigan Sugar Company was at the front as the
representative of the beet interests. There was
charge that the American Sugar Refining Company
the trust-was interested financially and heavily
in the beet sugar companies and specifically in the
Michigan Sugar Company. That charge was in.
dignantly denied and the assurance given to the
Senate, during the discussion in that body that this
relationship did not exist.
Yet q very few months later the books of the
American Sugar Refining Company were dragged
into court in law suit, and the fact was demon.
strated from them that the trust DID have very
large investment in the Michigan Sugar Company!
Moreover, il was shown that the trust was inter
ested to the extent of many millions in the beet
sugar companies all over the West II was shown
to be deep in the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company, in
which it was in fact business partner of the Nor
mon Church. 1t was interested in sugar factories
in Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado and many other
States. 1t was, in Short the big dominating financial
interest in beet sugar.
What had the trust been doing? II had acquired
q dominating influence in beet sugar. and then put
the beet interest forward to make the fight for the
sort Of tariff the trust wanted 1t kept its interest
IN beet sugar secret just as long possible because
if Congress had known to a certainty the alliance
between beet and trust it would have been less
willing to impose a tariff that made the beet sugar
business of the trust immensely profitable and
tilat incidentally made the refining business-of the
rust-immensely more so!
Since that time things have changed-nominally
at least. The Sugar trust, confronted by Sherman
law suit charging it with conspiracy in restraint of
trade by reason, among other things of its interest
in the beet companies has assured the country that
has disposed of its interests in the beet companies
But does anybody know whether this is more than
nominal readjustment? Does anybody know to
whom those beet interests have been disposed :?
Does anybody know whether the beet sugar stocks
once owned directly by the trust, are now owned
by big stockholders of the trust by somebody else
n its interest and behalf?
II is known, now, that four years ago when the
denia! of Sugar trust-beet sugar commonly was de-
MED, the denial was untruthful. Why should the
same assurance be any more confidently accepted
now than it deserved to be accepted then?
The charge is made likewise, that the Commit
tee Of Wholesale Grocers" really represents the re-
fners and is financed, as to its lobbying activities
by them. Who knows whether that is true? The
committee is demanding free admission of sugar and
seems to be fighting the beet interests. People who
have looked into the matter suspect that there is
some sham about this warfare, and that the real
interest of the trust is to maintain as high tariff
40 possible. Why the trust should want tariff is
not difficult to understand after little consideration
Of the business logic of the situation.
Sugar from Hawaii, Porto Rico the Philippines,
comes in free Of duty. The beet and the Louisiana
product are also free, of course. But all these to-
gether do not nearly supply the county's demand; ;
about two millions of tons are imported annually
from Cuba.