New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-12-06
DEFENDING THE TRUSTS.
ARE THEY ALWAYS INJURIOUS?
CLOSING ARGUMENTS IN THE CASE AGAINST
TILL, sIrGAR REEINERIES.


CLOSING ARGUMENTS IN THE CASE AGAINST
TIE SUGAR REFINERIEs.
Tho proceedings before Judge In tho Supreme
Court Special Term, to annu the charter OF the North
River Sugar Refining Company for joining the Sugar
Trust. were brought TO close yesterday noon ana
counsel received until December % to hand In their
BRIEFS after which the judge will render his decision
John L. Parsons and Attorney General Tabor were
absent from the table where the other counsel wee
seated but Assistant Attorney General Lsrdner ana
General Roger A. Pryor were on hand to represent
the prosecution while James c. Carter and ex-Judge
Carries p Daily were present behalf of the defence
Mr.. Carter continued his argument OF yesterday on
behalf Of the Sugar Refnees Company. as the Trust
Is called Insisting that the evidence did not show
that the defendant company was member OF the
trust. II It was, however, there was no legal
adjudication to support the claim that It had violated
the law and should give up its charter. The Trust
agreement not Illegal because 1t left each assoca
ton to itself to carry it's business in the interest
OF the others. Nor 1t monopoly. as 1t was not
injurious to trade. each company being at liberty 10
manufacture as much sugar pleased and at such
prices as II pleased It was merely combination
OF stockholders and the board has the power 10
control the stockholders in their action. To show
that trusts are not always Injurious to the pub
ic Mr. Carter instsnced the Standard OIL Company
one Of the largest combinations in existence ana
said the court would take judicial cognizance OF that
fact -
GENERAL PRYOR INTERRUPTS.
He was interrupted by General Pryor, who SAID
that such statement outside Of the case yet. IL 10
was brought in he would contend that the sugar
combination had enhanced the price OF sugar
So 900 900 and had stopped at least seven rcnneres
Mr. Carter. continuing, declared that the Standard
OF Company had reduced the cost of oil to the con-
sumner to six cents From this fact he argued that
A.. ic tn prices,
and claimed that the average price Of sugar to-day
is cent pound lower than It has been for the last
ten years. After referring the great advances made
I'm mechanical devices. he said The world demands
abundance OF commodities and demands them
cheap and they have them only by the employ
ment Of this great capital on gigantic scae' Judge
Barrett asked If the Sugar Trust could not fix the
price Of sugar. Mr. Carter said They cannot control
the price of sugar, and II they could 1t would be
most lnexpedent thing for them to do. The power
exists for them to fix price II 1t is for their interest
to do so. No man get an advantage which
another has not.
Judge Barrett-Does that not fix me price Of sugar?
Mr.. Carter-No sir. because each do as he
plcascs Each participates in the losses and each in
the profits
Judge Barrett-Competition will go on?
Mr. Carter-No. sir no real competition. for nobody
is working for himself; each is working for ALL IN
Guiding himself.
Judge Barrett-Would not that be an unnatural
state OF thngs7
Mr. Cartcr-I think not. They regulate their
price.
Judge Barrett don't suppose the mere object Of
this board Is to secure the profits and divide them.
They have executive purpose.
Mr.. Carter-No, sir The main purpose is that
Judge Barrett.-The law says that combinations
to advance the price of articles are Illegal
Mr. Carter-If a monopoly is possible, not other
wise. conspiracy to increase the price OF neces-
sary Of life is impossible thing II there are any
foundations in the teachings Of political economy.
Is TAMMANY AT THE BOTTOM
General Pryor replied briefly stating that he wished
TO clear up the charge that had been made that a
powerful pol teal organization had urged the Attorney
General TO bring this suit. He declared that that
Official had proceeded entirely upon the report of the
senate Investigating Committee. John 4. Parsons,
counsel and treasurer Of the Sugar Trust, said to
Tribune reporter who met him yesterday afternoon:
This suit grew out OF a resolution passed by Tammany
Hall and followed by a petition from their masnaes,
including Mr. Grant and Mr. Croker. favorable
result for Tammany Hall would have the effect of
driving out Of existence a sugar refinery and this
limit production, the very thing which Tammany Hall
says the Sugar Refneries Company wishes 10 do. II
heir object was to limit production, Tammany Hall
pany does not wish do this and will strvS at all
hazards 10 keep the North River Refinery alive II
are beaten, of course we shall appeal but We do
be beaten.D