The Washington times., 1913-05-29

sugar for the trust. 1t has them all surrounded Inc
independents get only what the trust graclousy per-
mts them to have.
Next we come to Cuban sugar, which is not free'
but which in at 80 per cent OF the full ouy
vast advantage. What is the evidence that CUBA IS
in effect controlled by the trust?
First, chain of credits dating back to the time
of Havemeyer, by which the trust crowd nnanceS
planters in Cuba. Zaldo & Co.. bankers, OF havana
could proftably be investigated in connection Win
this relationship. Tropical planters have to De, III
almost all cases, heavy borrowers They estaolsneo
relationships many years ago that made them oeo'ors
to the trust crowd and those relations still survive
to large extent Sugar trust money financed the
rehabilitation of the sugar industry in Cuba after our
war with Spain, and largely has financed the great
growth of the industry since that time.
That is the first part of the reason why the
trust controls Cubas 80 per cent sugar But there IS
more.
The Cuban-American Sugar Company owns long
chain of sugar plantations in Cuba and great plan
tation in Louisiana James H. Post longtime presi-
dent of the National Sugar Refining Company-as
we have seen founded and conducted as subordinate
of the trust-was also leading figure in the Cuban
American; other identities of directors proved the
close community of interest between the Cuban
American and the trust group.
These are the proofs that the trust interests
control the primary sources of cane sugar these
are the reasons why independent reners are at the
mercy of the trust. They get just as much OF the
cheaper sugars as the trust deems desirable to let
them have; no more. The trust could put the in
dependents out of business in very short time if
it wanted to-. Expediency explains why it does not
do so.
As to the relations between the trust and the
beet sugar concerns, The Times has heretofore dis
cussed them. Four years ago it was positively testi-
fed that the trust was not financially interested in
the beet companies. Yet on January IS, 1911, the
trust published an advertisement in which it listed
all its holdings in beet sugar companies, showing that
held heavy interests, aggregating many millions Of
dollars in companies that aggregated "a per cent OF
the beet slicng capacity Of the whole country! Is it
safe to accept rs entirely candid the later claims tat
the trust is entirely out Of the beet, and that it is
now fighting the beet sugar makers? We think not.
Summarizing the whole situation, then, it appears
that the alignment places the Sugar trust the Louis
lana cane and the beets, on one side. On the other
are the independent refiners and the consuming
public.
The independent re6ners would be truly inde-
pendent if sugar were FREE They would be able to
get their share of the free or shaded-du sugars now
controlled by the trust by simply bidding for them
in an open and legitimate market. That is why
they want free sugar. It is not because they are
fighting for the public, it is because they want to be
certain of their own lease Of life. It merely happens
that their interest would be furthered by the policy
that would make ALL sugar free.