far above it, then below again, and thus continuously in cycles. There is no normal level of competitive price based on cost of production.

While there does seem, from this thought, to be this partial justification for the claim that the Trust may have lowered the price of sugar on the whole below what it would have been for a time had the combination never been formed, the relative steadiness of the English margin at a point which, in the main, seems lower than ours, considering the higher grade of English refined sugar, as well as the exceedingly high margin found frequently in the United States since the organization of the Trust and the large profits of the American Sugar Refining Company, would seem to show that the price of sugar in this country has probably, on the whole, been rather higher than it would have been had most refiners been willing to take but a small profit above the cost of refining, and certainly considerably higher than it would have been under conditions of competition such as have existed during the last two years.

A still further fact which leads to the same conclusion is that Mr. Havemeyer, the president of the American Sugar Refining Company, seems

unwilling to concede that the cost of refining is as low as his competitors assert. Mr. Jarvie, of Arbuckle Bros., says that with a margin of from 50 to 60 cents sugar can be refined without loss. Mr. Doscher agrees, saying that it can be done without loss when the margin is 50. Mr. Post places the margin somewhat higher, but concedes that a large establishment like the Trust would have an advantage of from 3 to 5 cents a hundred pounds in refining. Mr. Havemeyer, on the other hand, puts 50 cents a hundred as the bare cost of refining, and declares that 24 cents more at least must be added on account of the waste in raising sugar from 96° to 100°, the polariscope test of the refined, thus making the margin necessary for profit some 75 cents a hundred, instead of from 50 to 60. Apparently he thinks it wise to reckon in some interest on investment with the cost, which the other witnesses seem not to have done. He admits that "no great damage is done" when the margin is at 75 cents. There is a profit, if all is in good working order.

Another point which is to be considered, al-, though it is one which is scarcely noticeable, or noticeable only in certain special cases on the

chart, is this, that in order to secure the same profits the margin between raw and refined sugars should be slightly greater when the price of raw sugar is high, inasmuch as the loss of weight is a more expensive waste. If, for example, with raw sugar at $3 a hundred there were a 7 per cent. waste, let us say, in refining, this loss would amount to 21 cents a hundred; while if, with the same 7 per cent. waste, the price of raw sugar were $4 a hundred, the waste would amount to 28 cents. We see, therefore, that in order to make the same profit the margin should be 7 cents a hundred more in the second case than in the first. The witnesses speak of unusually vigorous competition and a consequent low margin each year from December to March, while the Louisiana crop is being refined and marketed, but this does not appear with any regularity.

On the whole, the chart seems to make it perfectly evident that the sugar combination has raised the price of refined sugar beyond the rates in vogue during the period of active competition before the formation of the Sugar Trust and the two competitive periods during its existence. We can perhaps hardly judge so accurately as to

what might have happened had the combination not been formed, but the price has probably been raised beyond what it would have been. There

is doubtless some force in the argument of Mr. Post to the contrary, and we must concede that in industries of this type we can hardly speak with accuracy of a "normal competitive rate, based on cost of production or on the prevailing rate of interest, which we can use as a standard of measurement.

times from the however, show The advance in

The chart does not give us any information regarding the effect of the sugar combination upon the price of raw sugar. That seems to follow in the main, as would be expected, the fluctuations in the prices of raw sugar in both England and Germany, with the decided differences that we should expect at effect of our tariff. It does, some remarkable fluctuations. prices in 1888 and 1889 was due principally to a shortage in European beet crops and in the Cuban cane crop, which led to wild speculation in Europe. It is probable, as several of the witnesses testified, that, owing to its peculiar strength as a buyer of raw sugar, the Trust is able to depress the price slightly, perhaps one

sixteenth of a cent, but this is not enough to clearly shown on the chart. It is probable, to and this, in fact, seems to appear, that whe ever there comes a decided drop in the price raw sugar the Trust has been able to del slightly, though only for a brief time, the co responding drop in the price of refined; while on the other hand, increase in the price of ra is attended almost immediately by an increase i the price of refined, the Trust thus being abl to hold itself for its own advantage, to a sligh degree, independent of market conditions.

Whiskey *

A study of the line showing the difference be tween the price of the raw material, corn, pe

*The figures upon which this chart is based are to b found on pp. 815-817 of the Report of the United States Industrial Commission, Vol. I., Part II. The prices of spirits were derived from the reports of the Peoria Board of Trade, and are Trust prices at that point. The price of corn, derived from the same source, is No. 2 corn at Chicago, which is at present used by the Distilling Com pany of America as the basis in fixing its price for spirits.

For the last few months the prices of spirits have been furnished by the Distilling Company of America, and the price of corn by the Secretary of the Chicago Board of Trade.