Salt Lake Tribune | 1919-11-15 | Page 20 | Sugar Inquiry to be Through

SUGARTNilRY I j TOBETHOROUGH Federal Hearing Scheduled for Salt Lake City in January. Complainants Asked to Prove Charges Against Beet Concerns. Special lo The Tribune. WASHINGTON, D. C. Nov. 14 Hearings Hear-ings will be conducted by an, examiner of the federal trade commission in January at Salt L.ake City, and probably at other points in L'tah and Idaho on the Commis- sion's complaint against the Utah-Idaho Sugar company, the Amalgamated Sugar company. E. R. Woolley. A. P. Cooper and 13. F. C'ullen. alleging that these concerns, and individuals, have used unfair means to crush competition in the manufacture of beet sugar in their general territory. The two sugar companies and A. P. Cooper have filed formal answers to the commission's complaint of September 2. in which they deny all the charges lodged against them. The commission, having based its formal for-mal complaint on allegations filed by persons per-sons supposedly injured by the defendant companies, and upon reports of its investigators invest-igators wlic conducted a preliminary in-quirv in-quirv into the charges, is compelled. In lace of the formal denials, to go sweep-tngly sweep-tngly into the charges, and to confront the "sugar manufacturers with their accusers, ac-cusers, in order that both sides may have full and fair opportunity to producing such evidence as they have. Many Sessions Likely. Inasmuch as activities of the defendant companies in both Utah and Idaho have been assailed, and the charges of unfair Ytf-actiees are directed at alleged activities in both states, the examiner who con- j ducts the January hearings will probably hold sessions at most of the points where i it is alleged steps were taken to stifle competition. The federal trade commission is not at iibertv, on the record as it stands, to make' a ruling in this case. The charges on which the commission's complaint is , based are informal and not open to the j public, nor are the names of complaining complain-ing individuals or comnanies public prop- I ertv at this stage. The defendants hav- , ing' entered denial of all charges brougut j bv the commission, the law requires a thorough hearing lo develop testimony from both sides, and on this testimony .to be taken in January the commission will base its ruling. It will be largelv up to the now anony mous complainants to produce the evidence evi-dence to support the formal complaint of the commission, hough investigators O; , the commission win coninuuie sutn evidence evi-dence as thev found on their hasty Inquiry In-quiry and such other evidence as they may" gather between now and the time of the hearing. Penalties Cited. The commission decided to conduct this 1 hearing in the states from which the! complaint arose, because the witnesses are there, the evidence is there and it . would be both a waste of time and money to conduct the hearing at Wash- ingtou. " . . I In its formal complaint, tue commission fuxed November 12 as the date of hear- ;ng but that date was merely tentative i and set before it was known whether or not a formal, hearing would be neces-j HI sarv. , 1 In the event the evidence taen m ' the west justifies the complaint of the i trade commission, a ruling will be fortn-coming fortn-coming forbidding the defendant companies com-panies from taking unlawful steps further to stifle competition, and penalties, m the discretion of the commission, may be imposed. ., If the evidence does not support tne early charges, and it is developed that ; unfair methods were not taken to stifle Competition, the complaint will be dismissed. dis-missed. .