The Washington herald., 1920-05-10
EXCESS SUGAR
PROFITSFIXED
AT 900 MILLION.
W. Jett Lauck, Economist,
Quotes Figures to
Prove Case.
LABOR SMALL FACTOR
ll-Cent Product Possible,
He Says, With Reason
able Dealers.
LABOR SMALL FACTOR

Excess profits Of $500, ,ooo. 900 win
be eNacted by sugar interests II the
prevailing price OF 20 cents q con-
tinued this year. according TO ng-
ures on sugar profits submitted TO
Railroad Labor Board by W. Jett
Lauck, employed by the railroad
brotherhoods 20 argue IRbors con-
tention that profiteering and not
wage increases Is responsible for
high prices,
Mr.. L.aUck's figures on sugar
based upon recent government re-
ports tend to show rnaI the ad-
vance In labor costs has been q fac
TOR OF relative slight Importance in
the Increased. cost OF sugar TO the
consumer The American people, he
says, now could get sugar for 1lz
cents per pound IL the sugar inter-
ests were satisfied to take the same
proportionate increase in their mar
gins that labor in the sugar indus
try received in its snare. Mr.
Lauck's case is presented to the
labor Board as follows:
Cites Labor. share.
In the beet sugar Industry. from
l9l3-l4 to 19lG-lS. labor costs per
I pound Of output advanced from i.74
cents to 2.53 cents. en- inctease OF
only so of one cent, as contraSted
with an advance in the wholesale
price of beet sugar during the same
period of from 4.6 cents to s.ls
cents, an increase of s.27 cents. or
hNe times the advance in labor
costs.
, In the case OF louisiana cane
sugar labor costs advanced from
1 -
lsl7-lslS, an increase Of l-l6 cents
per pound. The increase in the
wholesale price OF Louisiana cane
sugar during this period was almost
three times as great In the case
OF Cuban sugar the increased labor
. cost represented only about 25 per
cent OF the increase in the whole
sale prices.
| Reasons For Increase.
In the case OF retail sugar prices
there was an advance from I.6 per
pound in 1913 to S.3 cents in 1878.
an increase Of a. cents, which is
eight times as great as the increase
in labor costs in the beet sugar in
oustry. four times as great as the
advance Of labor costs in the Louisi-
ana cane-sugar industry and seven
times as great as the increase in
! the labor cost in the Cuban indus
try"
/ Mr.. Lauck estimates ''IiberzIly-
that the increase in the labor costs
! for the lSlS-ls20 sugar crop over
the lSl7-lslS crop at so per cent.
On this basis" he continues. the
/ increase in labor costs OF produc-
ing pound OF sugar for the Sea-
! son of 1890 over the pre-war
period is al proximately 1.75 cents
for beet sugar; 2-64 cents for Lou
isiana cane sugar. and l.2e for Gu
ban raw sugar, while current whole
sale prices for sugar vary from Is
TO le cents per pound, an increaso
Of approximately II cents per
pound over 1914
1T i plain to see that the fun
damentsl reason for increased prices
/ is to be found not in the in
creased labor cost. but the Euro
pear demand for Cuban sugar The
diversion Of TIE Cuban crop to Eu-
rope has facilitated speculation and
profiteering ir sugar dowr through
/ the jcbber and Wholesaler to the
retail dealer. An examination ut
Official data as to tn, var profits
of the sugar producers who have
{ capitalized tho national necessity
will corroborate this CorcIrsion."
Mr.. LauCk presented the board
with a table showing the vast in
crease in the profits Of the leading
sugar producers. Twelve big COM
panies which showed average net
| profits aggregating Sll.3O6.S2S in
lsl2-lS14, showed S34,l74.T94 for
lsl6-lslS. The companies were:
Oahu Sugar Company. Pioneer Mill
Company. Ctah-Idaho Sugar Com
pany. Waiahua Agricultural Com
pany, Ltd. American Beet Sugar
I Company. Hawaiian Commercial and
Sugar Company, Eva Plantation
Company, American Sugar and Re
! fning Company, South Porto Rico
Sugar Company, Guantanamo Sugar
I Company, Cuban American Sugar
I Company. and the Central AEujFO
Sugar Company.
gpnhfir TaHccr