New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-12-05
IS THE TRUST ILLEGALLY
FINAL ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES

FINAL, ARGUMENTS on BOTH SIDES
THE SUGAR HEFINERs COMPLAIN THAT THEY
ARE TOO FEW 10 HAVE ANY POLITICAL III.
PLUKNCE, BUT SAY THEY CONTROL
e5o,ooo,Ooo.
Tho final arguments were begun yesterday n tne
proceedings taken by the Attorney General for the an
nulment OF the charter Of the North River sugar ke
filming Company on the allegation that II has exceeded
It's powers has forfeited its franchises oy becoming
a member of the sugar Refneres Company, otnsrw's"
called the Sugar Trust For the Application Cen
eral Roger A. Pryor. Attof ney- Gener~i TABOR ana
William J. Lardner appeared the sugar company
was represented BY James C. Carter 'ohh t. fs'so"'
and Chiof Justice Charles p. DAILY.
General Pryor made the first address. He main
taned that the company had incurred the penalty OK
dissolution by becoming member OF the sugar trust
The condition he said, on which any corporsuoh heh'
It's franchises that II would not violate the law
and any violation of the law by corporation to the
detrment Of the people involved the forfeiture OF us
franchises TIT exercised any powers not conferred
unou IL by its charter n violated the law ana fof-
feIted its charter monopoly was Illegal any
comhnstion or agreement constituting or creating
monopoly was a violation OF the laws OF tue isno.
ANY person who became party to such an aer7e"oh'
or combination q yiostor ot the law" ana any
corporation, by becoming II party TO mohopcv OF
combination forfeited its franchise. Anything 'ha'
snbanc.d the price of merchandise TO the de'rmeht
Of the public was a monopoly, because IL fss'to'eu
com petition and Was asalnst pubic poley, anu z"
therefore Illegal $50,
After proceeding In this strain at great length
General Pryor spoke of the sugar Rehnenes COM
many az a monopoly of the most pronounced type.
He said that the proofs that the defendant company
had become q member OF the Trust were found In the
minutes Of the meetings of the directors Of the Trust
In September 1887, the secretary OF the company Dy
authority OF the stockholders, had transferred thef
stock to the directors In the following November
some doubt Of the legality Of this transfer arose ana
then John searles and Others bought the stock OF
tho company which turned over 10 John 4
Parsons who held 1t for the combination
Attorpey-Ge neral Tabor next addressed the court
He took az the basis Of HIS argument In support VI
General Pryor, the second cause OF the complaint
claiming that the refining coH'panys charter Should
DO forfeited tor failure file It's annual report With the
Secretary Of State within twenty days from January
last, as provided by law He said no denial OF tbs
allegation was made aud cited authorities and quoted
testimony to show that the company should be dis
| solved He said the president Of the North kVer
sugar Refining Company bad testified tnN JUG sohi'
pany's condition such previous TO Jan'afy 1881
THAI It could do business without an e1penotuTe
Of between sIooOOo and 100000.
EX-Chtef Justice DAILY for the defence sad 'heeo
had been lawful combinations in commerce since the
O. j.
defendant company had violated the law. abused lis
privileges and .wers and exceeded the ffanchses
conferred On IT, or that had gone out of business ana
therefore forfeited It's charter, had SURRENDERED us
corporate powers by failure TO hle an annual cpo7'
He said that assuming that all the ssocAhooers ns'
acted together in making the transfer no transfer Was
made BY the corporation In its corporate capsNS'
The stockholders assigned all the stock 10 Mr. seares
and he transferred it the Sugar Refneres Company
f,1 In the
an Individual, and evidence had been produced 10
show that there was. The arrangement had NOT lh-
creased the price Of sugar 1t was simply an agree
nent by which the producer was secured for his out
lay and risk. After citing numerous DECISIONS Dealnk
on this point the speaker said that the object Oh 'h'
arrangement was promote economy, to give each
refinery the benefit Of the appliances OF the Others ana
| TO protect them against unlawful combinations Oh
| worlmen.
He read extracts from decisions 10 combat the as
seron that tho provision which directs that no trustee
| shall buy or sell sugar without the consent OK all Is
| unlawful and therefore makes the combination No"'
James c. Carter followed on behalf OF the company
He said that a number of gentlemen had taken the I'D
sry to ontcr into contract and its provisions showed
| that no unlawful act had been committed None Oh
the provisions were preudicial 70 the Interests OF the
] public. nor of any mans rights They were NOT
diminishing wages, and had done nothing that s ITey
| supposed was against public interest. Ihey simp>
walled themselves Of the common privilege OF making
contracts and they supposed they had right 10 DO So
| Having done hat they were charged by tho Atothey
General OF this State with having done what the law
declared o crime II there was any foundation LOT tle
charges they anxious 10 have them lnvesugated
They controlled $50 900, aud employed thousands
| OF men, and would not be in their interest 10 40
| anything unlawful. But they were capitalists ana
there was a widespread prejudice against people who
| were designated by that name. Five si4ths OF me
| people were capitalists Any one who had say ca sl9
bank was employed in the ,s same % THAT ,ss
under which the defendants labored was the snaihess
OF their numbers. They did not control large num-
| Der of votes, did they have any political power
Therefore IL suited persons who wished 10 gain pot-
cal power 10 point out the defendants as The proper
ones for condemnation. Mr. Carter maintained that
Mr. Soares having purchased the stock was not con-
PEELED to file annual report as he was not cor
poratlon. Mr.. Carter will flush bis argument this