The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-04-17

New York, April l6 The Herald says;
The sugar trust IL gone to smash. But Its
soul is still on earth under new conditions.
This information is given upon the author
ity Of gentleman who knows exactly
what he is talking about, but whose name
is withheld from publication at his par
ticular request. On February 10, 1888, by
a resolution Of the S tate Senate, the SEN
ate Committee on General Laws began an
investigation relative 10 trusts, and Gen.
Roger A. Pryor was appointed counsel to
this committee, moro generally known as
the Ives Committee Long and tedious
examinations and investigations followed,
and suit was brought at the instance OF the
committee against the North River Sugar
Refining Company, one OF the corporations
forming part Of the sugar trust, ON the
ground that the company referred to had
violated and therefore forfeited its charter
by joining the trust.
Judge Barrett, after careful considera-
ton OF Gen. Pryors arguments, decided
that the North River Sugar Refining Com
pany had violated its charter by joining
the trust, and receiver for the company
was appointed. This victory caused the
trust to tremble and look for some means
OF lodging the law, for II was apparent
that similar action could DO successfully
taken against the other corporations form
ing the Sugar Refining Company las the
sugar trust Is officially known. Suit was
recently brought against the American SUI
gar Refining Company, at Sun Francisco,
in the name OF the people, and upon the
same allegations that were used by Gen.
Pryor in the action against the North River
Sugar Refining Company, and then il was
discovered that the American Sugar Re-
filming Company had assigned 10 Theodore
A, Iiayemoycr, Henry o. Hayemeyer and
Charles H. Sneh Under these circum-
stances, OF course, tho case OF the people
in San Francisco must TALL through for hav-
ing no property. by reason OF the assign
ment, receceivcr cannot be appointed,
and the company viii possibly be run qui-
city by tho two Havemoyers and Mr..
Sncn.
The people Of this State have au action
pondng against the Havemeyers and
| the Elder Company, and the case was
20 have been tried In March, but in de-
SPAR at the fate OF the North River Sugar
| Refining Company, and in view Of the
fact that the American Sugar Refining
| Company has assigned for obvious reasons,
| practically TO the llayemoyers personally,
the assertions that all the corporations in
the trust have also assigned, possibly to
the same people rs the American Sugar
Refining Company, and thus hope to
escape prosecution, seems 10 be founded
ON fact.
The success OF the action against tho
North River sugar Refining Company wa
based on the fact that the action Wal
brought against that concern ~ a corpora
ton, but the result might not be the sam
II action were brought against Messrs
Theodore A. Hayemeyer. Henry g. Have
meyer and Charles II. sneif. for In stance
as individuals.
Naturally, the gentlemen Representing
trust interests had nothing 10 say whcl
questioned yesterday as 10 the truth or un
truth contained In the statements mad
about the sugar trusts, but II was admitte
that great change had taken place anon
the corporations forming the Sugar Reiit
ing Company. At the headquarters OF th
trust. No liz Wall street, very livel
DAVIS business was done. Throughout th
afternoon clerks and others were rushin
In and out exchanging old certificates (
new ones, but the amiable treasurer. NJ
John scarles, would not even make an
|. comment upon the curious DISCLOSURE
!. made in san Francisco at the trial OF u
!. suit against tho American Sugar Rchnir
| COMPANY.