OCR Text |
Show I SMEARING OPENS flTRIGBY : J George E. Hill, of Beet Grow- era Sugar Company, on I Witness Stand 1 ItlGBY, Idaho. May S. Taking of ' testimony concerning matters relating "V to the Beet Growers' Sugar company I - of Risby In the federal trade commln-k commln-k Affi "Jon hearing began here today with; ip George E. Hill, secretary-treasurer of I , 'if the company and formerly its vice fit . Jj president, as the principal -witness. ' The complaint of the commission ; charges the Utah-Idaho Sugar com- !. i 'M pany, the Amalgamated Sugar com- nM pany, Ernest R. Woolley, A. r. Cooper !jf and E. F. Cullon with conspiracy in S restraint of competition in interstate iil commerce. m During his testimony Mr. Hill saidi MM that in 19l'8, "propaganda," was cir-1 19 culated generally among the farmers! IS -of this district that the Beet Grower's i 18 company would not be able to operate! m because of inability to secure seed, ia stool and other materials required. i In testifying concerning alleged ef-J forts of the Utah-Idaho to Inlerfere; U with the company, he cited an in- M stance wlieroin he alleged that an em-. ployec of the Utah-Idaho had persuad-, Im l"U 11 IcUIUCl IU UIDl t,IllU .111 I contract to disregard an existing con-! tract to raise beets for the Beet Grow-j I ers company and to turn his cropi 1 over to the Utah-Idaho. I Reference was also made, to the contract con-tract under which the Utah'-Idho took, WtinJtit' ovcr llle bcets valsed in 101S for the Wtg Beet Growers' company when that con-( J cern had been unable to complete con-i , J .sfruction aa scheduled because of war ' J and other conditions. This action, the, M witness said, was taken In part ai thej jl suggestion of the federal food admin-j ! m istration. I jj Tells of, Deal. , Mr. Hill told of alleged efforts made if by Mr. Cooper, one time chief engl- : nccr Tor the Beet Growers' company, (I to ueotiato a deal whereby Ernest R. 1 ;l Woolley would take over the conv ; pany. Mr. Hill quoted Mr. Cooper as! 5 stating'that Mr. Woolley was interest-1 ' cd in acquiring independent sugar b plants and-that he would handle the, Beet Growers Sugar company enter- j 3 ' price. The witness added that Mr.j k! Cooper had about persuaded him that ( l; such a course would be the bent fori Hi all concerned but when he could not E I find out the principals, Mr. Woolley1 U I represented he did not go further with! Hlhe matter. ; When Henry Ward Beer, special; counsel for the trade commission began be-gan to question tho witness regarding I alleged conversations with John W. I Hart, president of the Rigby stako of j fes the L. D. S. church and an employee Wfk of the Utah-Idaho, Judge D. N, Straup.l fl f " couuscl for the Utah-Idaho, and C. A.I Boyd, counsel for the Amalgamated 7 entered strenuous objections. j tj Seeo Oflden Man. " Mr. Hill siUd that in the fall of 1016, 1 prior to the beginning of the Beet I rife Growers' company, he "went to see WL Joseph Scowcroft, director of the B Amalgamated at Ogdon, In an effort to ! Interest him in the construction of a f J factory at Rigby. He quote Mr. Scow- i croft as staling that he regretted that If his company couldn't consider it, be chubc of the arrangement with the Utah-Idaho, whereby the Amalaga- J mated was to stay out of this torri- f . tor", and had turned over to the Utah-! if Idaho the plant at Shelly, Idaho. Mr.j II Hill's testimony was ended for the day) when he was "answorlng questions by ( Mr. Beer relative to the Inability of thej I J Beet Growers' company to make loans I at ihn Antlorson Brothers' bank of l j Idaho Falls after it had done business I with the institution for some time, fl Bray Witness. M , The first witness called here was JjP Charles T. Bray, cashier of the Beet ljJjjr.w,J7 Growers' company. After answering JF a few questions which had been post- '' poned on direct examination, Judge j Straup took up the corssl examination . which had been postponed at tho con- i elusion of Mr. Bray's testimony in Salt i Lake. Judgo Straup sought to elicit from the witness information conccm-,j conccm-,j ing tho financial affairs of the com- pany and the witness continually cx- pressed his ignorance of the details. This resulted in somewhat of a debate de-bate between Judge Straup and Mr. Beer regarding tho pertinency of such questions, Mr. Beer offering to pro-, pro-, duco a witness who knew all about j those matters and Judge Straup inslsl- I j ing that a man who is a director. I stockholder and cashier of a company i Is qualified to know something of Its financial affairs. The witness declined, de-clined, on Mr. Beer's suggestion, to answer questions relative to the price Rt which tho company sold Its sugar made from the 1910 crop. Judge Joseph P. Dunham, presiding examlnor for the commission, sustained this phase of Mr. Beer's objections, holding such matters to be business secrets which a competing company has no right to know. James H. Haw ley. son of Former Governor Hawley of Idaho, representing the Beet Growers company com-pany entered into the debate and likewise like-wise assured Judge Straup a competent compe-tent witness would be provided and the necessary books and documents produced. pro-duced. oo - |