THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 1897.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10418, 16 April 1897, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 1897.

There is at present proceeding at New York, and creating much interest all over the United States, an inquiry into trusts. The proceedings have a very considerable interest for us, because there is no question that under the influence of democracy, we are tending in the direction of the evil state of affairs which has enabled these trusts to obtain enormous power, and to bleed the whole of the people. Such trusts are illegal, as a law of the State of New York contains the following clause ;— Every contract or combination, in the form of trust or otherwise, whereby competition iu the State of New York in the supply or tho price of any article or commodity of common use iu said State may be restrained or prevented for the purpose of advancing prices, is hereby declared illegal. This clause has been the law for three years, with penalties attached of 5000 dollars, and a year's imprisonment for the breach. But it is simply a mockery. Take the production of sugar, for I instance. The protective legislation of America excludes foreign competition, and the American Sugar Kenning Company can make such agreements witl: their customers as enable them to rub the market, and to say what price tie whole people of the United States shall pay fortheir sugar. Thecommitteeof the Senate, which is dealing with this subject of Trusts, has taken a large amount of evidence on the working of the sugar combination. Mr. Henry Havemeyer, who fixes the price of sugar all over America, was under examination :—

You succeeded in destroying competition by bringing rivals into the trust, did you ?—Yes, sir. And made the price of sugar to the American Sugar Refining Company much more farourable thau it had been before that time ? —Precisely. And what difference does it make for the consumers in this country in a year, in your judgment ?-It has been in three years past three-eighths of a cent more on every pound they ate. And that would be about how much in round numbers is a large sum in the aggregate. How many millions ?-I should say it was close to 25,000,000 dollars in three vears. And you intend to keep your hold upon the American people as long as you can?-As long as the McKinloy Bill is there we will exact that profit.

At one time the sugar trust picked the pockets of their fellow-citizens to the extent of nearly two million sterling per annum. That -was done by the invitation, and with the assistance of the Legislature, and it would surely in the circumstances have been unpatriotic to have refused the chance. They say, "So long as the Legislature of the State, with the consent of the people, choose to hand us over eight or ten million dollars per annum my partners and myself will pocket the money, Why should we not V Mr. Theodore Havemeyer stated to the committee that the trust manufactured 70 to 80 per cent, of the sugar consumed in the States, that the Western States were supplied by the Spreckels Company, but that even in this concern the trust held half the shares. The head of the Sugar Trust confessed that they were making 100 per cent, per annum. The capital value of all their properties is 20,000,000 dollars (£4,ooo,ooo),audthey are making more than that every year. And so long as protection is the settled policy of the States they cannot be touched. They look forward to making scores of millions of dollars in years to come. German and French competition is kept out by law, good wages are paid to the workmen, and heavy contributions are paid to the fighting fund of the proper political parties.

But it seems that we cannot quite believe even in the bona fides of this legislative commission of investigation. These commissions are sometimes got up in order to levy blackmail upon corporations. A letter in a New York paper from the State capital at Albany says :—

The Sonar Trust and other profitable combination, of capital, anticipating an adverse report and sweeping filiation from the investigating committee, already have agents on the wound here sounding members, learning their weakness, their financial condition, the names of persons having influence r& •&, Thi " UaU with a view to fighting the Bills reported by the Lexow Committee. If the Bills aw likely to do ranch damage to the trusts money will be •pent like water to beatthem. remarked that never before were so many new faces seen m the looby. The men who are he be done in New York city. . . There is R».!i,w1 t,on th ? t i he ttw * na ™ paid the Republican party for "protection," and in tend to hare it, even if they have to pay the member, of the Legislature over again? It is not, therefore, all beer and skittles with the corporations. They have to pay heavily to the.political party which maintains, protection to native industry, and when a commission like the present is get up they have to undertake an enormous expenditure by the bribing of politicians, : so as ■ to preveae the reported > Bills , from

passing into law. Mr. Have me ,J in his examination, admitted th/> the Sugar Trust paid which#' party was predominant for protects. In a legislature of members electJGy universal suffrage, or one-man-oneje. corruption is quite an easy miter Money is no object with a tJt in such a case. If they do spend/half* million, or even a million dole's, they have only to put a fraction </ a cent per lb on sugar, and the moiey is in their coffers again. Think 0/ a Legislature setting up committees ind drawing and discussing Bills simjjy for the purpose of making a ccrporation, bolstered up by the law, disgorge some of its gains to politicians! That, however is, it seems, a well-known procedure in triumphant democracy. We in New Zealand do noc know very much about this sort of tiing yet.' The results of our heavy tariff fall ipon the people directly, ard go into che coders of the State. Bui in all protected countries the time canes when a section gains enormous advantages at the cost of the whole community. In England it was a tine thing for the landowners to have a monopoly of the food supply of the people. In America fie manufacturers, or some of them luld the key of the position. The information elicited before the committee ihowing how the Sugar Trust bought ait competition, how in some cases ■hey smothered persons who threatened ihem, how they tie up all retailers, ind compel them to deal only with the sompany, furnishes a mass of interestng reading. It shows how in a country rhere we have government of the )eople, for the people, and by the people, corruption and misgovernmeal may prevail worse than anything w< read of in Russia.