Show SUGAR MAKERS PLOT ALLEGED Federal Trade Commis Commission sion Zion Reports Findings Appeals To Follow The Tho defendant sugar and E r R n Woolley announced last night that ol appeal el to 10 the cult COUI I ot of appeals from Crom the decision of ot the federal trade lon which after aftel three years ot oC litigation has lias found tont the Utah Utah- Utah 1 aho company compau The Am- Am Amalgamated Am Amalgamated 1 Sugar company t E c It H Woolley and A P r Coper guilty of oC compiling to monopolize tho roo et ot of Utah llah Montana and Xe nh I the he vote 1610 ot of o tho commission ilon was as three to t two to 0 The findings are anno cod on the basI basis of ot testimony dur- dur during dur during ing the llio spring and ond r ot or 1920 when hen hen hearings on the charges were ere on conducted at Salt Late Lake HI Idaho b Idaho La Il Grande Oie Ote 01 e San Fran bran o Francisco cisco 1110 tad and places other othey- othey places 1 e the tor for th the lon Mote ole than n a hundred rout roll the tt estt rn states Lre v ire heard and hundreds hundred of pounds ol ot evl- evl l e was as submitted s In the form or of letters maps and ond documents ot of ote ery every e ery kind and description D B RI C IU I M Y The Thc decision upholds fie l-fie charges nade by the commis commission lon In virtual virtual- iv lv v es e eNY pat titular but bul that de- de decision de decision was nas rendel rendered d b by a a II bare ma- ma ma majority vote ote of ot the Ihl three N or of Its members sustaining the findings and two ds dissenting After recounting Its findings the commission Issues Its order ruling upon the tho defendant corporations to Cease and desist from con conspiring pi ring for combining between bet and among themselves to maintain or Cr retain the monopoly of ot the corporations to the establishment of beet tel sugar ugar and the building b of ot b beet ct sugar factories by persons or Interests other than the corporation r respondents and from effectuating or attempting to ef- ef effectuate ef effectuate such conspiracy and com com- combination combination Sho 1 ho ease cac ca e brought it tt the he sup sup- supposed sup supposed posed instigation lion of ot so-cl so called so-called In- In independent In Independent depend dependent nt ho whose hoIt wit wit- witnesses wit witnesses nesses testified during the hearings ot of alleged Interference by the ma-joi ma ma- ma JOI concerns attracted national at- at attention at attention WAY VAT ron FOR o While the order to desist Is as far faras faras as ab the federal trade commission ton can go the a way i Is opened to the defendants to appeal from the findings to the United States Slates cir cir- circuit circuit cir circuit court of ot appeals Judge D N who with Rw R W Utah 1 bung loung oun represented the Utah Utah- Idaho the company In the declared last night tha- tha thap there Is nothing In the tho e evidence to fo t the of ot the commIssions commIssion's majority that the tho charges made e have hae been In no way woy sustained and that there Is no basis of ff law for forthe forthe forthe the findings made d I GS UL GS NOTED The findings In brief brier declare that the companies and ti committed wrong rong in the following way 8 s 1 By making divisions of ot ter- ter teri for the purpose of ot prevent prevent- preventIng preventing preventing ing competition in the growing of oC beets and the erection of or factories 2 By Dy preventing the Dyer com com- compan company company pan pany from building on an and factories for tor competitors of t the defendants 3 By using their financial po power er erand and nd Influence so as to cause banks bankst t I nd others to refuse credit to and to discourage competitors f pm f from the purchase of or sugar beets and the manufacture of at sugar 4 By using u their financial pow po er erand and influence to purchase land and erect factories In the territory where competitors undertook y pr In- In Intended In Intended tended tendel to undertake the election ot of factories 5 By B Inducing beet growers iro-aers Iro ers to break or cancel contracts for tor the production of ot beets tor for lois tots tOIS C 0 By circulating circulating- and publishing false misleading and unfair state state- statements tate tate- ments monte concerning the machinery ind d equipment of ot comp 7 B BI clr circulating and publishing unfair statements concerning the of oC o competitors to get and pay for beet seed concerning the 1 6 adaptability of ot lond lands inthe In the teru- teru tory leni-tory tory of at competitors s etc u- u STATEMENTS TS 8 By lly making untruthful state state- statements state state-ments ments against competitors competitor to influence ence federal departments and agents to present the building of at factories by competitors 3 9 D By offering to ad advertise in inne ne newspapers circulating In western estern states tates where whre wh re competitors were Vere b- b bated lo with the understanding that policies be In ta or df the defendants 10 By Inducing beet be t growers and others to withdraw support from and to breach contracts contract for them the growing of ot beets beet with competitors competitors tors tore 11 By Dy circulating circulating- false and un- un unfaIr un unfair fair statements concerning the tl- tl fi financial ability and standing ot of competitors for the purpose of hin the sale of ot stocks tocks etc 12 By B financing secret agents for Cor the purpose e of ot Inciting finan finan- financial cial trouble for tor competitors and by secretly acquiring stock control inthe In Inthe Inthe the busm as of s a I 13 U 1 By financing secret agents for for the purpose e of harassing com cont- competitors with groundless litigation and lawsuits lan suits 14 By circulating false state state- statements statements I ments concerning the honesty or ability of ot the promoters officers ces Or emplaces of competitors ORDERED TO DE DESIST I l lemPIO e From all of ot these things the de- de defendants defendants de defendants are O ordered to desist I desistI In the dissenting opinion of Com Corn Commissioner missioner stoner Van tan Fleet he disagrees with the findings holding that thoI the I transactions complained of ot were all allIn allIn illin In Intrastate commerce commeTte and that the federal trade commission had no Jurisdiction t on being concerned only ony with matters mallers interstate Int I Henry Ward Yard Beet Beci wa was the at- at at attorney lorne torney prosecuted who the case forthe for tor forthe the trade commissIon lon and he made many acquaintances here during the weal eel weela s If of ot his hia stay to In In connection with Ith tho the cabe cake R Macmillan J n represented the tho Amalgamated Sugar company and andL 1 L R colli y nn |