The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1889-11-23

which was taken. placed itself i'm COM
plete subOrdinatiou 10 another and
different organization, TO be used for
an unlawful purpose, detrimental and
ibiurions TO the public; Instead of
manufacturing its product and dispos-
ing of it to the public on what might
be fair competitive prices, it had
become party TO a combination, in
part, al least, designed to create a
monopoly ald exact from The pubic
prices which could not otherwise be
obtained.
"This was subversion of the object
for which the company was created,
and it authorized the attorney general
to maintain and prosecute this action
TO vacate and annul its charter. The
action was well sustained by the facts
which the evidence supported, and the
judgment, for the reasons already mem
toned as well as those assigned by the
Judge presiding at the trial, should be
affirmed.
"T decision of the general term"
said Gen. Roger A. Pryor, who repre-
senled Attorney General Tabor i'm the
action TO annul the North River Sugar
Refining COmpany's charter, "does not
surprise Inc AZ all. have expected all
along that Judge Barrelfs decision
would he affirmed. Now / suppose
they will carry IL up TO the court of
appeals. OF course the North River
Company is not one OF The corporations
that are bringing money into the sugar
tIU-t. On the other hand, it is a dead
weight. But the principle involved
cCVersall the corporate interests merged
III the sugar trust, and the results OF its
establishment cannot but be serious.
"The eleven trustees Of the combina--
lion hold only in trust the stock ot<SS
the corporations involved. - Sc
not own it nor does The friist own il.
The original Shareholders have turned
it in, aud have resolved trust certifi-
| Gates III exchange. All that they have
| now TO represent their property inter-
est i'll the plants and properties of the
| corporations Is such certificates. But
| The courts hold that the trust is an
Illegal agreement, and the memoran-
dun OF an illegal agreement. as has
been asserted u hundred limes, fur
| nlshes no basis for an action and con-
siitutes no property right that the
courts can take cognizance of or
| protect. u remember correctly there
are $50, 900, 900 in sugar lrust ceriifi-
Gates outstanding. The original in-
tention was not to have these sold TO
outside parties. But they have been
50 sold, are now on the market, and
some of them in the hands of pur-
chasers who never owned share in
any one OF these corporations. Now
the effect OF this decision, as affirmed
| by the general term, is TO wipe out the
legal effect of trust certificates.
| You can see where the purchaser or
receiver of such certificates stands.
He calls for his dividends They are
refused. He offers his certificates to
prove that ha Is entitled 10 the returns
tioni ihr pIopeHy. IL is at once an-
secret that they have no legal bearing
CT. question. Having no other
evidence, what can he do? L tell you
that, SO far as can see, the trust cer-
tificates are wiped out by this decision.
ss sa IN n; r. 3 sssss9r ssss Z wsI, sss ,shst ass
Inf H}i1 - y otIli BE 70 put all the
prop rife dhtQfb .napdsof q single iil-
Idividnaf, say, Tor example, MIR. Theo-
doro Havemeyer, relying on his good
faith !. The law against combinations
\ would havenO effect against an individ-
ual. But then the man selected would
might have wiic who could claim
dover in any of his real estate. In
any case his death would leave in the
hands of his executor any property of
which he might be technically pos
sessed, and the real owners would be
left out in the cold. / do mot think
anything OF that kind would be feasible
or would be attempted.
| s'prnhahlu tho ennru. 10 zyoul1 "A
safest would be to form a corporatien-
under the laws of some other state in
order to continue doing business in
this. But even then the legislature of
New York could impose any restric-
tons it might desire to impose on the
business done within the Empire states
limits by an outside corporation. The
United States courts have held that this
can be done without interference with
the right of the federal government to
regulate interstate commerce. But all
of these possible courses would become
impossible the moment receiver had
been appointed tor any corporation
desiring to follow it. The North River
Company, for instance, could have
nothing to do with any new combina.
ton unless the court OF appeals should
reverse the decision appointing re-
ceiver.
why did we not begin all the suits
simultaneously Because it was not
desired to throw upon this movement
against the trust the Odium of raising
the price OF sugar. If that had been
done sugar might have gone up to 81
a pound. The new Baltimore refinery
and the Sprecklcs concern at Philadel-
phia are not in working order yet.
Spreckles' San Francisco refneries are.
But then he would have been given an
absolute monopoly. A receiver having
been named tor each one of the trust
corporations, the production Of suear-
by the plants under their control
would be practically if not absolutely
stopped. The attorney general did not
care to do anything OF this sort"
John K. Parsons who was counsel
, for the sugar trust, was seen at his
cffice in the Trinity building. He de-
ciined to talk, but gave out the follow
ing formal statement of the position
taken by himself and his clients:
81 have not seen the opinions, and,
therefore, cannot talk about them.
The sugar people have not been un.
willing that the North River suit
should be brought, and have interposed
j no obstacles to it's progress, wishing
! that, as quickly as possible. it should
i reach the court OF appeals, and that by
D the decision of that court it should be
ascertained whether it was unlawful
for the holders of stock in number of
corporations to pool their stock, thus
8 creating Il common interest. l, have
5 never believed, and with great reepect
10 the learned judges, do nots yet Do
d lieve, that such pooling is unl6Wiul.
think that such arrangements have
Z been sanctioned by the judyesQf Eng
land, and believe they viii be 0y the
5 courts OF last resort in this oonntry.
do not believe that they violate the
principles of political economy or are
Ii Injurious to the public interest. What
! is 10 be regretted is the politics which
!, is supposed to be interpolated into the
u subject.
G 1t has been stated from time to time
II that there was a purpose to ALLEVIATE
: the property of the companies. Amy
= such statement Is absolutely without
II foundation"
u When asked as to tho effect of the
J. decision If finally affirmed on trust cer-
J. tificates, Mr.. Parsons said: "lf l am
capable of forming an opinion upon'the
D subject, ii is that, whatever may be the
" form, the certificate holders own the
Y property. To interfere with the prop
s critics would throw out of employment
Il tans nF tbonsan1s Ot narratives ~ hiph