Morning journal and courier., 1888-12-05
| News by Telegraph
 FROM ALL QUARTERS. FARE TRUSTS ILLEGAL? An Important Test Case In The New York Courts. WAR 0N THE WHITECAPS. Efforts To Exterminate The
 Mysterious Bands. LAND LEAGUE METHODS. General Foreign News Of
 Interest.
ATTACKING THE SUGAR TRUST.

ATTACKING THE SUGAR. TRUST.
 A Test Case i'm 1he New York Courts Es Combination IIIegaIa-Arguments Fro and Con.
 NEW YORK, Dec. 4-After few techni-
 cal points had been disposed of by Judge Barrett in Supreme court, special session, to- day, arguments were begun in the proceed iDgs instituted by the people through the attorney general against the North River Sugar Refining company to~forfeit it's ohar- ter and secure it's annulment because it ex- ceeded its power in becoming member of the Sugar Refining company (sugar trust) Attorney General Tabor, General Roger A. Pryor and William J. Lardner appeared in support of the proceedings, while James c. Carter, John E. Parsons and ex-Chief Justice Charles P. Dsly represented the interests of the sugar company.
 IS COMBINATION IN TRADE ILLEGAL4 At the outset of the arguments General Pryor said that the condition upon which any corporation holds it's franchise is that it will not violate the law, and any violation of the law by the corporation to the detriment of the people involves the forfeiture of it's franchises. If it exercises any powers not conferred upon 1t nor communicated by II charter. A monopoly, the counsel oontended, is illegal. Any combination or agreement constituting or creating monopoly is vio- lation of the laws of the land. Any person who becomes party to such an agreement or combination is a violator of the law, and any corporation by becoming a party to 8 monopoly, combination or agreement forfeits it's corporate franchises. Anything that en- hances the price of merchandise to the detri- ment of the public is monoply, because it restricts competition and is against public policy and therefore illegal. He cited cases not only in this State, but in almost every State in the Union, in support of his argument, some of which went 80 far as to say that monopoly is crime. The coun- sel therefore urged that monopoly is illegal not only in a civil but also in criminal sense. As to the sugar trust, he declared it was 8 combination which created or consti- tuted a monopoly, was injurious to trade and commerce and detrimental to the public veal. Whether it be so or not would be determined by the provisions of the deed of trust, which would be construed upon it's terms, and if it tends to constitute 8 monopoly the court would so hold without reference to it's actual effects or whether it ever went into operation or not.
 ARGUMENTS FOR THE TRUST. Judge Daly opened for the defense, taking the ground that combinations to promote commerce were lawful and had been reeog-
 nized as such by English law since the time of James 1. The object of the sugar combi- nation was to promote economy, protect re- liners against unlawful combinations of
 workmen and give all refineries the benefit of
 the appliances of any one refinery. He as-
 serted that the price of sugar had not been raised.
 MT. James o. Carter argued in a similar strain, claiming that wages had not been re- duced and that no harm had been done the
 public or any individual. MT. Carter said
 there was popular prejudice against capital
 ' ists, but every man who saved $10 was a cap
 itslist. The prosecution was c political one. The trust was composed of few men, not
 controlling many votes. Certain persons, I therefore. sought notoriety by posing as
 friends of the people and prosecuting the
 \ trust. The arguments will proceed to-mor-