OCR Text |
Show ANTI-TRUST ! SUIT FILED Dissolution of Corn Products Pro-ducts Refining Co. to Be Determined New York. Mar l. Dissolution of the Corn Products Refining company an alleged starch, glucose and syrup ' trust" is sought by the fed-era' fed-era' government in a civil anti-trust suit filed here today, charging the 80,000,000 combination with entering enter-ing conspiracies and contracts to de-Btroj de-Btroj competition in violation of the Sherman law. It Is alleged to have kept the price of corn products at unreasonably lower figures to harass nd discourage independent manufacturers manufac-turers Controlling " per cent of the en-tlro en-tlro American production of starch and glucose and 80 per cent of the Inter state trade jn mixed syrups, the alleged trust is charged with flx-inc flx-inc re-sale prices; with manufacturing manufactur-ing cheap grade candv at nnreason-ably nnreason-ably low prices In retaliation against confectioners who buv starch and glucose from Independents; with practically suppressing the private l brands of mixed syrups of grocers, by j quoting low prices on its own syrups; land with unlawful threats anil contracts con-tracts to destrov competition. Injunction Is Asked. Aside from a dissolution, the government gov-ernment asks for an injunction prohibiting pro-hibiting the alleged restraint of trade. I The suit recalls the long drawn out j fight between the department of agriculture agri-culture and the Corn Products Refin-, Refin-, inc.- company over the branding of its I corn syrup. Defendants Named. The following corporations, officers I and directors are named as defendants: defend-ants: Corn Products Refinlnc: company i New Jersey); National Starch company com-pany (New- Jersey); St. Louis Syrup and Perservlng company (Missouri); Novelty Candy company (New Jer-iey); Jer-iey); Penick and Ford, limited (liOu-isianal; (liOu-isianal; Edward T Bedford, William J Matheson, Frederick T. Bedford, A. B. Board man. Frederick T Fisher. C. H Kelsey. George S MeHana. George Moffett. William P Nichols. A A. Smith. James Speyer. E. Bever-lv Bever-lv W'alden, C M Warner. R S. Burns and A M. Watklns, all of New York Citv; Thomas P. Klngsford, Oswego, V V.: C H Ioronz and Ixnils Suss, Bt Louis; F. A. Lohmeyer, C. W. Lohmeyer and Edward T. Bedford, second of Jersey City, N. J.. Benjamin Benjam-in Schneewind. Chicago and William S. Penick. Jr., and James P. Ford, New Orleans. Attorney 6eneral Signs Bill The bill, filed by United States At- torne Henry A. Wise, is signed by Attorney General Wlckersham and I James A. Fowler. Jesse C Adkins and W illiam H. .Miller. hi6 assistants. It is alleged that the defendant combination dismantled many of the starch and glucose factories it absorbed, ab-sorbed, sellini: the properties in most instances under covenant that the i land conveyed should never, or not , for a long term of years, be used in 'connection with the manufacture of similar products. Alleged trust and Us predecessors j are charged with having taken con-' con-' tracts from officers and directors of I certain absorbed companies, not to i engage In the business for a period of ! years. Roval Had Similar Agreement. When the Royal Baking Powder! company acauljred control of the American Maize Products company, the defendant combination, it is alleged, al-leged, threatened to engage In the making of baking powder, resulting in an agreement whereby the Maize eompanv sold to the defendant the surplus product not consumed by the baking powder company. To sup-pi sup-pi ess competition, the combination Is alleged to have employed the firm of Stein. HIrsch and eompanv in 10uS and 1909 to sell glucose at low prices, independent manufacturers. Candy Companies Threatened. When the National Candy company, organized in 1906 the Clinton Sugar Refining company, whose output would come in competition with that of Com Products Refining company, the latter, the bill says, informed candv manufacturers throughout the country that unless they bought a seffifient percentage of the glucose tbey needed from the defendant combination, com-bination, it would go into the candy business itself in competition with them In consequence. It is alleged cnnl iodii.-i ; Refiu'n- orni. acquired control of the Novelty Can-dv Can-dv ocmpanv to retaliate against the National Candy eompanv purchasing glucose from independents. i ntii prohibited by the Interstate commerce commission, the eompanv is alleged to have secured from railroads rail-roads an excessive share of the tliroua-h rates on account of its own iwttShtoglbVe., which was alleged to 1 amount to rebates. |