The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-11-15
THE SUGAR Trust.
Proceedings in the State Courts of New York
to Determine Its Legality.

New YORK. Nov. 1.-The suit brought by
the Attorney general in behalf OF the people Of
the State of New York against the North River
Sugar Refining Company, to dissolve that COM
pany on the ground that 1t had exceeded the
privileges granted it by its charter in becoming
one ofthe members Of the great Sugar Trust, On
the LIST of October, 1887, and other sugar COM
psnies. was brought to trial, to-day, IN the Su'
preme Court The action is one OF the results
of the Senate investigating committee OF last
winter which, for the first time. brought to
light the deed Of trust under which the different
sugar companies have formed q combination. 10
was substantially agreed at the outset by coun-
sci that there would be no controvertsd quss-
ton OF fact for the court TO pass upon, outu
would merely be question Of law. The forn'
atty OF drawing q jury was then gonf
through with. The jury were told that az the
only question et issue was one OF law Tor the
court to pass upon, their services would not
be needed at the trial. They were only required
to be present at the end OF the case 10 60
through the formality Of rendering verdict az
directed by the court. Counsel agreed that The
testimony to De offered would not take any
great length Of time, and that after to-day they
would ask TO have the case adjourned until
Wednesday next in order to argue the questions
of law. With this understanding tho Jurors
were dismissed until next Wednesday. Attor.
ney-ceneral Tabor opened the case for the peo-
pie and stated that the North River Suear-refin-
ing Company, by entering into the
combination with the other companies,
had created monopoly by putting the price o.
sugar into the hands and under the control OK
the board of trustees OF the trust, which usurped
the powers granted by the franchises OF each
company. Geo. II. Moller who was the secre
tary of the North River Sugar Refining Com
pany was the first witness called by General
Prior. He identified the deed Of the Sugar Re-
fning Company (trustl
Jonn E. Searle jr.. who was president, treas
urer and stockholder of the company. and who
is now q member OF the board of the Sugar Re-
ineries Company, and also Its secretary, was the
next witness. He said he had transferred the
stock Of the North River Refining Company
under agreement with the subscribers that he
should receive a certain amount of certificates
for it, to the amount OF S095, 1000 and that the
amount had been fixed upon by the gentle
men making the bargain, and not by tho
board. He did not purchase the stock for
himself. but with the agreement that be would
resell il TO the trustee, who would transfer IL to
the Sugar Refneries Company. He was next
asked if be knew the annual product OF refined
sugar In the United States. and after tilt be-
tween the counsel to the admittance or the
question, be replied he could not tell the amount
Of the product. He said that the North River
company had made report for the past year.
for the reason that it had assets or liabilities
other than its plant. Il purchased the stock
of the company; the plant is there yet, he said.
There has never been any suggestion 70 discon-
tinue the business. The board of directors have
discussed the future Of the company, but
nothing definite can be done until we learn the
result of the disposition of the property. 1t was
not prudent for the company" he said, "to con-
tinue its business. The transfer of the stock OF
any company was always made 70 the individuals
named in the deed" Mr. Senrle said that the
board of trust had declared a dividend of q per
cent. last April, for five months. which had
been paid.
Mr. Moller was recalled, and in answer to At
torbey general Tabor stated that when he left
| the company, last December, it was turning out
from 275 900 to 300. 900 pounds Of sugar per day
| When the company ceased 10 do business it was
In better condition than ever before, and made
| more and better sugar.
On cross-examination by Mr. Parsons, the
| witness said that the company had not been do
ing business az loss the last two or three years
of its existence.
| Mr.. Ssarle was recalled and asked by Gen.
| Pryor. SIS there apv sugar refinery COM
| pany in the city or State of New York whose
| stock has not been transferred to the boarG!'
''No refneries that are recognized as sugar
| refneries."
lis there any refinery properly situated out
| side Of the State of New York whose stock has
| been transferred to this board!"
Eyes, sir"
"Are there any whose stock has not been
| transferred"
"Yes, sir; the Franklin aud one other in Phil
| adslphia, the Revere in Boston, and Spreckles g
| California refinery, In San Francisco: also. his
| refinery now building in Philadelphia. which,
he says, will have a capacity of from one to two
| million pounds per day
The witness said that the North River compa-
ny received for its stock 500, 900, less Is per
| cent, which was retained by the board.
This closed the evidence on both sides The
| judge decided to hear argument on the 9th in
| slant upon the legal questions involved in the
case. When he arrives at his decision he will
| then call the jury, and direct u verdict IN &C
cordancs with his judgment