OCR Text |
Show DISSOLUTION OF SUOAR TRUST Joseph F. Smith of Mormon Church Is Made One of Defendants in the Action, Also the Amalgamated Sugar Company of Ogden-High Finance Is Charged Mich ; Towa Sugar company of Wav-erly, Wav-erly, la ; Car or County Sugar com-pany com-pany of Chaska. Minn.; Continental Sugar co :n pny of Cleveland, O., and the Menominee River Sugar company of Menominee, Mich Joseph Smith Included. In addition to the corporations, some individuals are made defendants, defend-ants, including Washington B. Thomas president of the American Sugar Re-lining Re-lining compauy and all the directors of the company, John Randolph Spreckels of San Francisco, Joseph 11. Smith of Salt I,ake City, head of the Mormon church, and Horace Have-meyer, Have-meyer, Louisinc W Hafmiryer, II. Frellnghuys,er and Elecira H. Webb, executors and trustees under the will of the late . o. Havemeyer. New York, Nov. 2S. Attacking the American Sugar KeUnlng company, familiarly known as the sugar trust, as a lawless coiablnatlou. the federal fed-eral government today begau its long expected suit for the dissolution of the corporation The petition was filed fil-ed by Henry A. Wise, district attorney, attor-ney, in tho United States circuit court for the southern district of New York, and the suit, -wfaJoh. brought under the Sherman anti-trust law, is expected expect-ed to be one of the most Important actions of tbe kind ever undertaken , in this country. The go emment's poll! po-ll! Ion is a lengthy one, occupying 221 printed pajes, and is a sweeping arraignment ar-raignment of the defendant companies. compan-ies. One of the allegations is that the late H. O. Havemeyer of New York, for n long time the head of tho 6ugar combine, received $10,000,000 common stock of the National Sugar Refining company of New Jersey as a gift at the tlmo tho corporation was formed to take into tho combine four independent inde-pendent concerns tne National Sugar Refining company run by B H. Howell's Sons company; tho New-York New-York Sugar Refining company of Long Island City, N. Y.; operated by Claus Doher, tho Mollonshauer Sugar Re-fining Re-fining company of Brooklyn and the. W .1. McChan Snjrtir Refining conv panv of Philadelphia These companies com-panies up to 1900 were independent and it la said tho American company-was company-was determined to acquire them. Under Un-der a plan inaugurated by Mr. I lave-meyer, lave-meyer, John E Parsons and James H. Post, tho National company was formed nd took tbe four plants. Mr. Post obtaining options on them, when the new stock wan delivered. - the petition sets forth. Post delivered - iniMiuO ehajea of common stock, the Entire Issue, with a par value of fin.. 000,000, to MJ. Havemeyer. The petition peti-tion says the shares "were issued in the first Instance contrary to the law, in vlolutlon of the corporation's franchise fran-chise and for no consideration, as both said Post and Havemeyer then well knew." i The government alleges that when the American company took over four Philadelphia companlvs the Franklin Sugar Refining company, the Sprocket Sprock-et Snsux Refining company, the Delaware Del-aware 8uir House and the E. C. Knight company Mr. Havemeyer and his brother, Theodore Havemeyer, bought 45 per cent of the stock of the Spreckels company and then sold It at a large profit to the American company com-pany of which both were directors In gnnerul. the petition charges that i he defendants "for some time past ' have been, and are now, engaged in - an unlawful combination and conspiracy conspir-acy to restrain the trade and commerce com-merce among and between the several states and territories of the United , States and with foreign nations In raw sugar, supar bee us, refined sugar. Molasses, eyrup and other by-piv-ducU of raw sugar and sugar beets and to monopolize the same Such unlawful combination and conspiracy-Is conspiracy-Is the result and outgrowth of a series ser-ies of wrongful acts extending . over j a period of maov years and partleipat-1 ed In bv defendants, respectively, in the manner and to the extent as nere-Inafter nere-Inafter more full' set forth. j What Government Demands. The government petition tbe court to deciee: "That the dcfendauU have been enraged en-raged In unlawful combinations and conspiracy to restrain and monop-' monop-' elue trade, and that their officers, t'ircctoid, stockholders, agents and ciuploes be perpetually enjoined irom doing any act to carry out tho turnouts uf such unlaw! ul combination. combina-tion. " "That the court adjudge tbe American Am-erican Sugar Refining company, the National Sugar Relining company ot New Jersey and the Western Sugar Kt-Ilnlng company is each in iteH an nulawtiil combination lu itstralni of trade, and that eucb of them be re-itraiutd re-itraiutd from engaging In Interstate r foreign commerce. "That tho court adjudge that the s.iares of the capltui stock of each de-itiidant de-itiidant corporation, heretofore acquired ac-quired by any other corporate defenJ-I defenJ-I ant. were unlawfully aqulrtjl and j that each such holder be enjoined I I'rom contlnulug to hold such shares j and that the Issuing corporations be i enjoined from permitting the exer-tiso exer-tiso of rights incident to the holding hold-ing of such Bhares and that they be tujoltied from paying dividends to the hulderB, "That the bhares of capital stock Ir. the National Sugar Refining company, com-pany, Utah-Idaho Sugur company, titeat Western Sugar company and Continental Sugar compauy, former-. former-. ly held by tho late 11. O. Havemeyer, were unlawfully acquired by him unl are pow being unlawfully used by the ' oecutors and trubtec-s under his will, who are made defendants in the suit. Tie government asks that the executes execut-es and trustees be enjoined from farther uslns tho powers Incident to the f ha i es so held by iheni. To hi lug about co-operation between the i-.-sulng companies and the other do-i do-i Icndaat curpora'lons. "That tho ueiendants ie enjoined from continuing to tarry out the i urj.oKe of the unlawful combination iiol connplrticy and be loquircd to withdraw from all connections thcie- with. "That the coiiii grant such general illnf as muy be proper by wav of Injunction, receivership or otherwise" History of Combine. Tho criminal 9ugar combine, tbe potion po-tion sets forth, was the sugar refineries refin-eries company, which was formed in August, 1SS7, uniior tne lead of II O. Havemeyer and embraced com-penies com-penies which together carried un 30 per cent of tho sugar trade In intsr utato and foreign trade of tho country. Within two yejirs of tbe formation of tho original company. It Is charged, charg-ed, tho combination closed tweo refineries. re-fineries. In 1839, it obtained tbe Independent In-dependent California compauy, leav-I leav-I Ing outside the combination only the 1 four Philadelphia coru-ern;. The state of New York attacked the ar-rungoment ar-rungoment lu a suit to dissolve" tho North Sugar Refining company, which vas one of the parties to tho agreement agree-ment and the courts held the combination com-bination to be illegal. Thereupon, the present American Sugar Refining company was formed lu January. 1S91. and continued tho business of the comb.no. From 1892 to noo, it is said, independent inde-pendent refineries storied up and others tried to. One company built a plant in Baltimore Bcrore it could operate, tho American company bought its capital stock and never allowed It to operate its refinery. The same thing happened to the United States refinery, It is said, in 1806, vhen It built a plant at Camden. N J. The suppression of tbe Pounsvl-vr.nla Pounsvl-vr.nla Sugar & Refining company, which was brought out iu a suit acainsl the American company .some years ago, is also referred to. The California & Hawaii Sugar company, controlled by Hawaii planters, was put out of business, it is alleged, by-means by-means of an agreement whereby the combine was to pay $200,000 a year for three years, provided It retired from the field. Co-operated With Grocers. The government charges that the American has obtained uufair advantage advant-age over competitors by obtaining money on imports by custom frauds, as was brought out in the government's govern-ment's recent suits, by receiving re bales from railroads and by workbig In haimony with wholes-ile grocers' associations throughout the country and keeping up the price of sugar. A considerable portion of the petition peti-tion is devoted to the acquisition by the combine of the beet sugar plants when that industry began to grow formidable. ln lPnl all tbe companies com-panies except the Spreckels company, which was a beet sugar concern, we'e Independent The American, t Ls charged, began its; campaign by sending send-ing into the middle west large quantities quan-tities of sugar on which it had obtained ob-tained rebates and free storage during dur-ing the summer. In the fall, which is when the beet suuar companies begua to sell their products, the American is said to have put Its prices to less than eosi, injuring tho business of i the beet sugar companies. In H02, having weakened and discouraged these compHnles. th petition recites, tho American company began to buy them In, in some cases exacting a tribute forall sugar sold by such companies. The American Beet Sugar Su-gar company, it ls charged, was forced to pay a quarter of a cent per pound on all sucar it sold. At present, according to the petl lion, tho American company and lu subsidiaries contiol 72 per cent of the total output of refined sugar In the country, which Is said to be enough to permit it absolutely to control pilces after meeting a certain amount of competition. Amalgamated Sugar Named. The defendants are the American Sugar Refining company, its directors and officers, and all cane and beet sutrar companies in which it holds btock or over whith It has control by the holding of stock in them by companies com-panies which in turn are controlled by the American. The companies made defendant, ln addition to tho American Sugar Refining company, arc The American Sugar Refining company com-pany of New York, tho Franklin Sugar Refining company of Philadelphia. Spreckels Su:ar Refining company of Philadelphia, Western Sugar Refining company of Sau Francisco, California Sugar Refinery of San Francisco, National Na-tional Sugar Refining company of New Jersey, National Sugar Refining company of New York. New York Su-gai Su-gai Refining company, Mollenhaut.r Sugar Refining company of Brooklyn. W. J. McCahan Suar Refining company com-pany of Philadelphia. Cuban-American Sugar company of New York. Colonial Sugar company of New York. Alameda Ala-meda Su?ar company of San Francisco. Francis-co. Unh n Sugar company of San Francisco, Fran-cisco, Spreckels Sucor company of San Francisco, Utah-Idaho Sugar company com-pany of Salt Ijake City, Amalgamated Sugar company of Orden. Utah: Lew-tston Lew-tston Sugar company of Iwleton, Idaho; Ida-ho; Great Western Sugar con pany of Jersey Cits. N- J.: Sterling Suear com-pany com-pany "of Denver. Mo grin County Construction Con-struction company of Denver, Billing Sugar company of Billings. Mont.; ScottPbluff Sugar company rf Denver, . Mlthkan Sugwr company of Saginaw, |