| OCR Text |
Show jOeDEN MAN AT '- SUGAR HEARING i M. S. Browning and James P. Sprunt Testify at Federal Commission Inquiry SALT LAKE, April 22.- Testimony oi' M. S. Browning, Ogdcn director of the Amalgamated Sugar company and James P. Sprunt, promoter of sugar and other enterprises, was given yesterday yes-terday in Die federal trade commis-l sion hearing of the complaint charging conspirac in restraint of interstate! commerce against the Utah-Idaho Sugar Sug-ar company, Ernest R. Woolley, A. V. Cooper and E. F. Cullen. The testimony of Mr. Sprunt was chiefly concerned with his endeavors to establish a sugar company at Delta He proved a reluctant witness in regard re-gard to matters which concerned his part in the promotion of his companies, compan-ies, in telling of the alleged attempts of the officials of the Utah-Idaho Sugar Sug-ar company to hinder his efforts to establish an Independent factory, Mr. Sprunt quoted the late James M. Davis field man for the older company as having said: "We won't let you build here. If you do build we will put up a factory alongside your and freeze you out. If you make sugar you won't bo able to sell it." The witness told further of alleged efforts on the part of Mr. Davis to j secure acreage which farmers had contracted con-tracted with himself, Sprunt. The j Ulah-ldaho company, he said, pre-I pre-I vailed upon some farmers to break their contracts with him when the Utah-Idaho gave them long-term mortgage mort-gage loan3 on their farms. In reply to questions by Henry Ward Leer, special attorney for the ff-deral trade commission, Mr. Sprunt testified to a conversation witli "W. R. Wallace of the Utah-Idaho company" tin which Mr. Wallace was alleged to have suggested that Mr. Sprunt with-tiraw with-tiraw from his Delta project, first on i consideration of 510,000 then on the suggestion that $20,000 would pay Mr. Sprunt's expenses and leave him some prorit. Tho promoter testified that they i didn't build the factory first ccntem j Minted be cause they could not get ! beet seed, but that a factory was j erected as a result, of subsequent ef I torts by other interests than those first identified with him. ; j It was under cross-examination by I Judge U. N. Straup, counsel for the jUtah-Idahp, that Mi. Sprunt demonstrated demon-strated his unwillingness to testify to, j certain quest! ions. The first demon-J ,stration of litis reluctance came when jJudgo Siraup asked Mr. Sprunt for j whom he was acting in his first en-: en-: ticavor to put up a factory. I Referring to an effort he-made to .start a plant near Murray. Mr. Sprunt j (testified that he had entered into an' i arrangement with J. A, McHcnry to i Unite over ihe hitter's proposition! t which, al that time, ctnsistcd of a fac-: jtory site, 5000 acres of heels contract-, cd for and subscriptions to. $100,000 worth of stock. T. R. Cutler, former general managw of the Utah-Idaho I company, had paid Mr. McHcnry T0r jhis contract, according to the evidence i of the witness. ! Mr. Sprunt refused to even write the names of the eight men who backed j him in his second enterprise. i ' Mr. Browning testified to his cn- .deavors as a peace maker between L. lit. Eccles of the Amalgamated and 1 Bishop Nibley. general njanager of the j Utah-Idaho, which resulted in the sale of the Urlgham City company by (he1 Utah-Idaho to the Amalgamated." I The Amalgamated director tiestifiod I that (lie diifcrences between the Ec-i icies nnu tne .Moiey interests, had reached such a point that it was apparent ap-parent a fight would result disastrously disastrous-ly for both companies. The Eccles interests in-terests had at that time formed the Eccles Sugar company, Mr. Browning testified, and was going tp erect a factory fac-tory near those of the Ul'ah-Idahoo. The irritation of the Eccles interests was caused, Mr, Browning said, by the j construction by the Utah-Idaho of the iBrigham City plant, which was located in territory part of which was consid-j consid-j ered neutral. |
