Rensselaer Republican, Volume 26, Number 45, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 July 1894 — THE CAMPAIGN. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

THE CAMPAIGN.

Origin of the Sugar Trust and Its Far-Reaching Influence. About the Sugar Trust. Indianapolis Journal. Seven years ago a sydicate of sugar refiners who found too much -eempotiGonin their business conceived the scheme of forming themselves into a company. Plants which originally had a capital stock of $15,650,000 were put in at $8,900,000. and refineries which had been capitalized at §5,750,000 were closed and disposed of. That is, a capital of $8,900,000 was made to control the Sugar refining of the United States. Upon this valuation of . less than $9,0J0,000 The syndicate organized a company known under the laws of New Jersey as the American Sugar Refining Company, but new popularly known as the Sugar Trust. Upon this valuation of $8,900,000 the company issued $37,500,000 of preferred stock, bearing 7 per cent, interest, $37,500,000 of common stock, upon which dividends are declared, and $10,000,000 of six per cen t. bonds—a total capi tai ization of $85,000,000. That is, the trust sold more than enough bonds to purchase its plant, and issued $75,000,000 of stock, entirely water or wind. In 1888 the trust paid $5,000,000 in dividends, while the trust earnings from refining that year equaled 27.5 per cent, on the certificates. The next year $5,000,000 of cash dividends were made and 8 per cent, in certificates. while the Sugar Trust earnings netted 23.!) per cent, in the certificated. The same amount of dividends was paid in 1890, while the net earnings from refining were 6.4 on the certificates. This rate of dividend was kept up until March of this year, when a resolution was adopted by the company or trust declaring a quarterly dividend of 3 per cent, on the common stock from tlie surplus 'earnings of 1891 and 1892, and a dividend of 1} per cent, on the preferred stock of the company entitled to quarterly dividends —already assured 7 per cent/ It was officially stated that after making these large dividends on stock ; which, to those who issued it, did; not cost a dollar, the trust had a' surplus of $5,000,000 of net earnings. Let us consider the import of this last vote of the Sugar Trust. There are $37,500,000 of common stock, upon which there was a quarterly dividend of 3 per cent.,or 12 per cent, a year voted, which would call for 64,500,000; the preferred stock, car vying 7 per cent., is $37,500,000, and the extra dividend of 11 makes the dividend 81, calling for $3,281,250. To these”series add the interest on 610,000,000 of six per .cent bonds, and the aggregate of the dividends and interest on- the year’s business is $8,481,250. Add to this-the extra dividend on the common stock of 10 per cent, from the net earnings of 1891 and 1892, and the distribution of money by the trust the present year aggregates $12,131,250. On a bona fide capstilization of $85,000,.100 this would be equivalent to 141 j per cent, per annum, but $75,000,000 of the capitalization being fictitious, , the dividend and interest for the current year is $12,131,250 on a plant and property Costing less than $lO, - 900,000, or 121 per cent! Of course, the stocks are now held in part by those who paid the market value for them, but the Havemyers and others forming the Sugar Refining Company have realized 675,000,000 on what cost them 68,900,000. To every dollar actually invested-they have added more than seven bogus dollars, and upon the compound of one real and seven bogus dollars the trust is wringing a return of 10 to 15 per cent, per annum from the sugar consumers of the country. And this is the trust which seems to have led every Democratic Senator captive, including our own renowned trust smasher, Daniel Wolsey Voorhees. Profits of the Sugar Trust. Indianapolis Journal. Willett & Gray’s Analysis, a pamphlet on sugar by experts, gives some very interesting facts regarding sugar defining in the past. It shows that in 1888, under the high tariff on sugars, raw sugars cost 5.907 cents a pound and refined sold

at 7.149 cents, a difference of 1.247 cents. The cost of refining was then five-eighths of a cent per pound, winch left ahout five-cighths of a cent a pound, or sl4 a tongas the profits of refining. The same result appeared in the analysis of 1889. In 1890 the competition was sharper, and toward the close of the i year the certaintymf the change of ( the McKinley law reduced profits iso that the difference of price be- ! tween the raw and the refined was oniy .706 of a cent, and the cost of refining that year being nine-six-teenths of a cent, the net profit was $3.23 a ton. This is not a large profit | the n a single ton is considered, j but when the President of the trust 1 reports that 1,500,000 tons were reJ fined by the trusts refiners, the agj’gregate net profit was a consider- . able sum of money. " All refineries • that could not turn out a thousand ' barrels a day being closed, the cost . of refining now is very much less than in 18!111. In 1891” the organ of the ! Sugar Trust said that the cost of reI fining did not exceed half a centra 1 pound. The census authorities were utterly unable, to procure from the | trust any statement which would re--1 veal the cost of the process of refining. Representative Warner, of 1 New York, who has investigated the . whole subject, asserts that the total ' expenses of refining are about thirty 1 cents a hundred pounds, and that all 1 of the cost, counting depreciation of i plant and all allowances, does not exceed 40 cents a hundred pounds. ‘lt is significant that the trust re- . mains silent while such figures are 'published. Other figures given ' show that with the extention and I better facilities for refining the trust I can do it as cheap, if not cheaper, j than it can be done elsewhere: For 1 that reason the duty of the present 1 law should be repealed and sugar put upon the free list. Instead of that, the schedule adopted by the Senate gives the trust a differential duty of per cent, when it should have none. r' - Enough. Louisville Courier-Journal. They do say they have been having a few more elections scattered ’round through the country, and the grins on the faces of the Republicans grow wider and wider and their lips smack more loudly in anticipation of the return of the year of the Fatted Kine. This is a dreadfully disagreeable sort of a year, anyway. Weather and weather and elections and elections, until it has simply become exasperating. It may be the making of blackberries, but it is rough on Democrats. Let up on elections. ———2__ Boycott elections. Abolish elections. Blot elections out of the constitution and swipe the word out of the dictionary. Some people -never know when to stop. Nothing is more disgusting than carrying things too far—carry • ing elections especially. --- There .are thousand of folks in this country Who are just plumb tired out at the mere thought of an election. Say, what’s the good of elections, : anyhow? They ain’t so all-fired I funny as some ipots seem to think. There are oodlins of things that are just as comfortable and a heap more amusing. There’s a hand-or-gan, for instance, or a school commencement, or a report of a ball game by the Louisville Club, or Senator Stewart’s silver speech or even that of a plain, unpretentious funeral, with a free hack-ride to the graveyard. Any one of these can beat an election out of sight for real satisfaction, comfort, entertainment and pleasure. Give us a hand organ, give us a ball game, give us a funeral, give us liberty or death, give us anything provided you give us a rest on elections!

Wilson Bill—I'm ashamed to go back to the House this way—boo-hoo-hoo!—New York Recorder.