| Show SUGAR PROBE C H RUSHED H BY f Ill Al MT I I A t L Utah Idaho Sugar Company and Amalgamated Sugar Company Named in Complaint by Government Trade Commission JO I HE people of Utah are about to learn the truth concerning T THE sugar They are areMo areto to be given an insight into the workings of great sugar corporations especially the beet sugar combines of the intermountain intermountain intermountain inter inter- mountain country controlling the beet sugar production of the United States They are a about out to td learn of certain charges preferred by bythe the federal trade commission against the Utah-Idaho Utah Sugar company and the Amalgamated Sugar company which allege that these big combinations have conspired to stifle and suppress competition in the purchase in interstate commerce of sugar beets and in the manufacture and sale of refined beet su sugar ar The investigation opens in Washington today It bids fair I to shake the whole sugar fabric of the entire country If charges preferred are made good it will result in fines and the possible imprisonment of the individuals responsible In any event it will enlighten the public on the great operations of sugar capital capita and make known why small concerns are driven out of ot business It will in a a. measure answer the great question which has been occupying public at attention attention attention at- at since prewar days In spite of ot vastly increased sel production why is there a t sugar short abort shortage shortage age and why are pr prices ces so high I DEFENDANTS NAMED The present inquiry opening in the national capital today is entitled the tha Federal Trade Commission against the Utah-Idaho Utah Sugar company the Amalgamated Sugar company Ernest R. R Woolley A. A P. P Cooper and E. E F. F Cullen The complaint charges violation viola viola- violation tion of ot section 5 Ii of an act of ot congress congress congress con con- gress approved September 26 1914 which outlines and defines the powers powers pow pow- ers of tte thie federal trade commission I The complaint will also bring the defendants within the range of ot the She Clayton bill the food control bill hili tho the regulations of ot interstate commerce and all laws aimed against the restraint re restraint restraint re- re of ot trade The bill is backed by a mass mai maior of or evidence that has been in the process for many months mont A According According Ac Ac- cording to advance information the complainants have a conclusive prima prim facie case which will inevitably force torce the proceedings into the United States courts OFFICIALS INFORMED Alth Although ugh the uie local machinery of II the department of ot Justice has not been called upon United States District Attorney W. W W. W Ray stated this I morning that he was fully Informed of the proceedings and might bot be b called caned upon to furnish certain evidence evidence evi evi- dence In his possession He said that I the department of Justice had Investigated in investigated investigated In- In the operations of the sugar combine in connection with profiteerIng profiteer profiteer- Ing charges He lie Indicated that the Utah district Is fully informed on the aUe alleged ed machinations of the beet sugar combine The companies mentioned In the complaint are defendants against charges of monopolizing the beet sugar trade of ot the West Yest by driving out competitors through alleged illegal Illegal illegal Ille ille- gal means They are charged with monopolization of ot beet fields f factory sites and trade agreement si They rhey are charged with hampering of ot competitors competitors competitors com com- In the securing of beet contracts contracts contracts con con- tracts or driving drilling ing out lesser concerns seeking to erect sugar factories of making unfair agreements In the h handling handling han han- of beets and deem the manufacture of ot sugar sugar of ot spreading false propaganda c concerning the sugar trade and of ot misleading the public regarding sugar Continued on an page pace 6 61 COMPETITORS CRUSHED Continued from page 1 1 supplies S and prices They TIrey are even with wih employing secret agents to spread false information and to negotiate ne no- secret and unfair agreements agreement WOOLLEY INVOLVED Ernest R. R n Woolley is named as an anI active agent of or the sugar combine I The complainants will wiit wi attempt to show 1 that Woolley has acted as stockholder of ot smaller sugar companies posing as asan asan as' as I an au individual when In fact he was merely agent and tool of the big controlling controlling con con- trolling companies The complainants will wi endeavor to show that Woolley Wooley I Iwas was the active agent to squeeze out competition in Cache valley through delegated to him by the power big controlling controlling con con- trolling companies I Cooper and Cullen Culen are named as codefendants codefendants codefendants co- co defendants through their interest in ina ina ina a sugar company at Rigby Idaho They are also being charged with having having haying hav hay ing acted as agents of or the main de defendants defendants defendants de- de to carry out the alleged illegal illegal ie- ie ille ille- gal machinations Richard W. W Young attorney for the Utah Idaho Sugar company has gone to Washington D. D C. C to represent his clients at the hearing Attorneys for forthe forthe forthe the big sugar interests of the United States will wi be present since the Inquiry in- in y aims at th the very foundation of ofal all al sugar manipulations Evidence will wi be adduced on the following following following fol fol- lowing complaint VIOLATION CHARGED Federal Federal trade trade commission vs Utah- Utah Idaho Sugar company the Amalgamated Sugar company E R. R Woolley A. A I 1 Cooper and E. E F. F Cullen Docket Cullen Docket Culen-Docket Docket No Amended complaint in the matter mater of the alleged violation of section 5 of an act of congress approved Sept September 26 1914 The federal trade commission having reason to believe beleve from a a. preliminary In Investigation investigation In- In made by It that the Utah- Utah Idaho Sugar company the Amalgamated Sugar company P E E. R. R Woolley A A. P. P Cooper r and On E. E YF F. F Cullen ul n. n all cl hereinafter el f r referred to as respondents have been and are using unfair methods of competition tion ton In Interstate commerce in violation of the provisions of section 5 of an act of congress approved September 26 1914 entitled An Act to Create a Federal Trade Commission to Define Its Is Powers and Duties Dutes and for Other Purposes Purpose and It appearing that ha a proceeding dl by It In Inthis inthis i this amended e complaint 0 stating g Us Its charges In that respect on information and belief belef as follows Paragraph 1 1 That tao Hie tle respondent Utah-Idaho Utah Su Sugar ar company is a corporation corporation corpo corpo- ration raton organized existing and doing business business business busi busi- ness under and by virtue of the tho laws of the state of Utah having its principal office and place of business located at atthe atthe atthe the city of Salt Sal Lake in the tile state of Utah That said respondent owns and operates factories for the manufacture and fd ly at refining f LehT Lehi f o of Garland sugar d lo located Elsinore t r or respectively respective respective- s Payson e Spanish Fork and West Vest Jordan Jordan Utah and Idaho Falls Fals Su Sugar ar City Blackfoot and Shelley Sheley Ida and Toppenish Wash Vash with wih factories at North Yakima and Sunnyside Sunnyside Sunny- Sunny side Wash Vash In the course of construe construe- tion ton That the respondent the Amalgamated Amalga Amala- mated Sugar company Is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Utah Uth having its it principal office I and place of business located at the city of Ogden in the state of Utah That said respondent owns and operates factories for the manufacture and refining of sugar I located respectively at O Ogden den Brigham Smithfield and Lewiston Utah and Burley Burley Bur Bur- ley Icy Paul and Twin Falls Ida That the Fals respondents R B. B P. P R. R Woolley Wooley A. A P. P Cooper and E. E F F. Cullen are all residents of the I state of Utah residing in the city of Salt Lake COMMERCE INTERSTATE Paragraph 2 2 That the respondents Utah Utah Idaho Idaho Sugar company and the Amalgamated Sugar company are now and for more than One year last past have been engaged In the purchase in In Interstate interstate In- In commerce of sugar beets from growers or purchasers thereof transportIng transport- transport gowers Ing such sugar beets to refineries and factories factories fac fac- tories owned su ar and operated by said re respondents respondents re- re and there manufacturing the same Into refined beet sugar suar and sellIng seln and shipping such manufactured refined beet sugar gar s to purchasers located in states States other and territories of the United I than the states In which such refined beet su sugar ar Is manufactured in direct competition with wih other persons corporations corporations corpora corpora- and firms similar engaged Paragraph 3 That all al of the above I Ie named e respondents o each c with t the h knowledge knowledge knowl knowl- edge of frt the other g Sa and with if the h effect f cot of r I stifling and suppressing competition n inthe In Inthe the purchase In Interstate commerce of sugar beets beet beet and In the manufacture and sale of refined beet sugar In interstate 1 commerce are now and for more than tItan one year last past past have b by combination and conspiracy amon among themselves entered into I and engaged In the unfair practices hereinafter hereinafter here here- alleged Paragraph 4 4 That the aforesaid combination com corn and conspiracy in furtherance of ot and to effectuate the object of unfairly un tin- 1 fairly hampering and obstructing competitors tors In the purchase In Interstate commerce corn com merce of sugar beets and in the manufacture manufacture manufacture manu manu- facture and sale In tn Interstate commerce I of refined reined beet sugar and of preventing and forestalling competitors from engaging engaging ing in the purchase in Interstate I commerce commerce com corn merce of su sugar suar ar beets and In the manufacture tore ture and sale in Interstate commerce of n JOa J I refined e t beet sugar r has has- iz been effected t and carried out bv by various means mean and methods meth moth os amon among them the following to wIt METHODS ALLEGED I a The circulation of false misleading mislead mislead- lag ing and unfair reports and statements concern concerning In A the financial standing and rens re- re ns of competitors a and prospective prospective tive competitors t r and the method u and manner ness neRS of transacting their said sai busi busi- b The circulation of ot false mislead mislead- J ing lag and unfair reports and statements that competitors and prospective competitors I tors would be unable to O obtain I or secure sugar a beet boet t seed Feed Jtb that a 8 said competitors o P I and prospective competitors would be unable to secure adequate supply of I sugar beets to supply their factories and that competitors and prospective competitors I tors would U be unable b to pay producers ers or e I Ic growers grower for sugar beets purchased rs fc c The circulation Of ot false misleading I 1 and unfair reports and statements that respondents respondent occupy all al of the producing territory In which prospective competitors com corn I were Intending to erect and operate beet sugar factories ard engage In the manufacture and sale sal Pe of I refined beet sugar that respondents have contracts for the purchase of ot all al beets to be grown gown that growers grower in the ly of the fa factories operated by respondents re- re reI I fall to produce enough beets to I t ply pl respondents respondents' factories and that hat I the territory is unfit for the tho production I of ot sugar beets d Canvassing the ter territory tory in which I prospective competitors w were we're re Intending to erect and operate beet sugar factories and engage In the manufacture and sale of refined beet sugar procuring and making future long term contracts with wih growers or producers for the purchase of sugar beets and advancing and lendIng lending lending lend lend- ing money to said sid growers and producers on such contracts e By using the great geat wealth power and financial Influence at their command com corn mand to cause railroads to delay building building buldIn build build- buld- buld tracks and to serve competitors ing In pure sere tors and prospective competitors and to cause eane banks and ot others rl to refuse credit credi to and and to discourage prospective competitors com corn of of respondents who were vera promoting promoting pro pro- corporations which were IntendIng Intending Intending Intend Intend- ing to operate beet sugar factories and abd and to engage in the manufacture and sale of refined reined beet sugar INFORMATION USED f t Unfairly and surreptitiously obtaIning obtaining ob ob- ob- ob taming Information concerning the private private vate affairs and business of Competitors and prospective competitors and using the Information so obtained in buying out competitors and prospective competitors and attempting to destroy competitors and antI prospective competitors by circulating tIng t- t ing tag reports tending tending to provoke litigation and to incite financial trouble and embarrassment em em- 5 g By using the great geat wealth power and ad influence at their command to erect and put Into operation beet sugar factories factories fac tac- tories e in the territory where prospective prospective o r rt tive competitors o te had undertaken n to start In competition in the beet sugar business busl- busl ness neES and to contract for the purchase of all al available sugar beets upon learning learning learn learn- lern- lern ing that prospective competitors had undertaken undertaken un un- to t In competition In the beet sugar business h Preventing or hindering and at attempting attempting at- at at tempting to prevent and hinder Dyer Co of Cleveland 0 O. the most moat most prominent manufacturer of beet sugar factory machinery and builder of beet sugar suar factories In the United States from building and equipping beet sugar factories for competitors competitor and prospective competitors i The circulation of false misleadIng misleading mislead mislead- ing lag and unfair reports and statements I that tp beet sugar factories r of prospective o ge competitors r who were Intending e to erect and operate beet sugar factories lz would not be built buit and that the beet sugar factory factory factory fac fac- tory machinery of prospective competitors tors would not make beet sugar J By financing and furnishing money to secret and undisclosed agents or em em- or servants for the purpose of inciting financial trouble and embarrassment embarrass ment meat to competitors and prospective competitors com corn and by annoying and harassing hassing competitors and prospective competitors I by Instituting vexatious and unjustified litigation SECRET AGENTS HINTED k It I By financing and furnishing money to tD secret and undisclosed agents or or servants for the purpose purpose purpose pur pur- pose of ot purchasing or acquiring the controlling controlling con con- trolling interest of prospective com competitors competitors et- et tors who were ere erecting beet sugar Bugar factories factories factories fac fac- tories and intending to engage in the manufacture and sale or Of relined beet I sugar 1 by divers others means and moth meth- j I all al in furtherance of and to effectuate I tua t the o object of f the d destruction n of I competition et I n of i beet ee ees s sugar r factories r and andI I of preventing |
