Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-04-24

cefVed by the small planters at Olaa
That 10000 tons of cane was bought
by the plantation from planters in
1914, and that during the present year
more planters offered to raise cane
tation could accommodate.
According to Mr.. Eckart, war pri-
ces have naturally made the 1913 con.
tract compare unfavorabiy as to rates
when viewed alongside the other ex-
listing contracts, but it Is generally
realized, believe, how very abnormal
the present price levels are, and how
impossible it was to forsee them
The following points are dealt with
by Mr.. R. Ivers in hts statement:
During the year 1914. the five
plantations represented by C. Brewer
& Company purchased from planters
224,312 tons Of cane
In the production of sugar tho
plantations Of Hawaii are in compe-
tition with Cuba aud with the beet
and cane sugar industries of the main.
land. -:
Investigations showed that the
smaH planter in Hawaii receives bet.
ter prices for the sugar produced
from his cane than do the beet sugar"
traisers on the mainland or the cane
raisers in louisiana -, +,
Mr., Ivers. quoted figures to- show
that during the years 1910, 1911, 1919,
1913 and 1914 the planters selling cane
to mills his company represents have
realized STA. per acre per CROP That
the average Yield Curing these years
Has been ~ tons Sof cane per acre
and an ayeraseie price obtained of
$4.05,. this being The. average return
on approx iinateE q, zoo acres of land
extending over q period of five years
Deducting sthe cost of production
from $172 per acre as above, the av.
erage profit pei. acre per annum to
the planter has been $29.75 or 1871
cents upon his Investment, while the
mill owners profit. upon its invest.
ment upon the capitai invested in
handling the planters cane has am
ounted to 13A per cent. -.
Opinions seem to vary as to what
it costs to produce ton of cane, the
figures given varying all the way from
$50 per ton. to $3.50. Mr.. Eekart
states that the average cost of produc-
ton in Olaa Is approximately 1925
per tod.
THE only contract which was called
to the attention of your committee
which, in the opinion of the commit
tee may be criticised as inequitable,
is the Olaa 1915 contract. Under that
contract, as has. already been stated,
while the prices paid The planter for
cane when sugar Is low are higher
than prices paid under the former con.
tract, when high prices of sugar pre-
vail the prices paid to the planter
do not increase in proportion. II
may we'll be that. having nursed the
planter through lean years, when high
prices reign, the mill should to some
extent recoup itself, but it would seem
that rearrangement Of prices when
sugar is high could be made, and the
planter allowed to participate in the
general prosperity. In this connection
il should be borne in mind that the
oiaa Sugar Company during the IS
years ofsits existence has paid its
stockholders no dividends and that
only recently on account Of abnormal
" high prices, has it gotten into any.
thing like q sound financial condition.
1T is the opinion of your commit
tee that, while as demonstrated by the
investigation held, there may exist in.
dividual causes for friction between
the small planters and the mill cor.
poration, no general cause for dissat.
isfaction exists snch as to warrant
the passage OF Concurrent Resolution
No. 6. j. 4 49,
"A commission appointed by the
president for Athe' purposes indicated
by the resolution could, In the opinion
Of your committee, serve no useful
end r - !. :. T..
.RY SectinnT7s Of the Organic Act