The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-01-12
The Defeat of the Sugar Trust.

Various opinions are expressed as to the
effect of the decision of Judge Barrett Of New
York against the sugar trust. The trust, as is
well known, includes very nearly all the
sugar reflneries in the country 1t has its
headquarters in New York, and its purpose
is to dictate the price of sugar. Immediately
after it was formed the price Of raw sugar
declined and that Of refined sugar adj
vanced. The profits Of the sugar refining
business, as conducted by the trust, are
therefore much larger than when the sugar
refining companies competed with each
other. The public suffers, but the share
holders in the trust are benefited.
Action on behalf Of the people was be-
gun against the North River Sugar Rein
ing Company to declare its charter for
feited. TIE ground of the action was that
the company had forfeited its charter
because it had ceased to operate its
refining works, and had exceeded its corpo-
rate powers. When the trust was formed
1t was determined to reduce the amount of
refined sugar produced TO the actual needs
Of the ma rket, and also to lessen the cost Of
production. These things were accom-
plished by closing some of the refneries
and running others 10 their full capacity.
Those who own the refneries which are
closed, however, get their proper share of
the profits OF the trust.
The decision Of Judge Barrett was, in
effect, that the company had exceeded its
powers by entering into a combination
which deprived it of the control of its bust
ness and virtually destroyed its identity,
and that in doing this it had defeated the
purpose OF Its charter. Doubtless if actions
are brought against other refining compa-
MES in the trust the same result will be
reached. provided the trust does not take an
appeal from Judge Barretts decision to a
higher court and secure decree setting his
decision aside. His decision is so clearly in
harmony with the law, however, that it is
not believed that the higher court would
disturb it even if it should be called upon TO
review it,.
But it doesn't follow that the monopoly,
which the trust has established. would be de-
stroyed, even though the charters OF all the
companies in the trust should be declared
forfeited. There may be other WAYS in
which the monopoly msy be maintained.
IL all the refneries, controlled by the trust,
should be sold, one after another, under the
decision of the courts, there is nothing to
prevent company from buying them, and,
in that way, controlling them. Indeed, the
present members of the trust could form
such company, and do, under a different
organization, just what they are now doing.
In that event legislation would he required
t. break up the monopoly
Sufficient capital is about all that is nee
essary to make monopoly of almost any
business S, and it is not improbable that the
number of great monopolies win steadily
increase, notwithstanding the opposition of
courts and the hostility of legislatures. 1t
is not difficult to get money for any enter
prise. provid- it can be shown that it will
afford a safe Investment and win pay fair
dividends.
There are other trusts which are organ
lied upon the same plan as the sugar trust,
and the course which that trust will pursue
to meet the condition of affairs which Judge
Barrett's decision presents is awaited with
con siderable interest.