New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-04-23
THE COURTS.
ARGUING THE "sUGAR TRUST CASE"
BEGINNING OF THE CONTEST IN THE COURT OF


prc1yNrNG OF THE CONTEST IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS.
Albany. April ee--In the Court of Appeals to-day
cha est 90 10 called was the People. plaintiffs and re-
ooao,ts against the North River Sugar Refining
comnanv defendant and appellant, commonly Known
"a the Sugar Trust case" Attorney General Charles
= Tabor and General Roger A. Pryor appeared ior
the state and John f. Parsons and James G. Carter
of New York, for the appellants.
The appcllants argued that the objections to the
combinations Of capital. upon the ground that they
arc opposed 10 the public interest at variance with
,be views entertained by leading political economists
and by distinguished jurlsts who in recent times have
considered the subject. Such combinations do not
prevent competition. ON the contrary, If they re-
ut adyantagcously. they stimulate, encourage and
invite IT, It must appear that the agreement in
question is hostile 10 the public interests that it has
no,ted or that II must operate adversely TO the pub
lie interests.
The purnos, and effect Of the deed is that the
holders Of the stock of all the refinery corporations
pool their stock thus in effect making all the stock
ho,der, of each corporation the stockholders
Of alt. 50 bringing about community Of
,rouerty and interest To maintain that such an
arrangement is criminal requires that it shall be de
,eruincd that rival, in business may not become part
ocrs contributing 10 the partnership the'r several
uroperties and that neither JOINT STOCK ASSOCIATION
nor a CORPORATION shall be created by persons pre-
yin Du,ll',7 S'laih'-'' W UNIV o'''
,ronerties and business for their common good II
If f., legal for the stockholders in several corporations
n, nool their stocks for them 10 do so cannot cause
, forfeiture Of the charter, Of the companies The
suggestion has been made on behalf OF the plantfs
that the transfer Of stock to board was VOID, as
hcinr in violation Of the prohibition Of statutory law"
~ fine SUSPENSION Of absolute ownership Oi personal
property This the appellant asscrts' Is not trne
In conclu,ion counsel for the appellant made the
poiut that no court is justified in pronouncing
Transaction of business founded upon contract en-
tered into in admitted good faith. to be unlawful
merely for the reason that IL j. prjufical to trade
and commerce unless the court is entirely satisfied
that il /, thus prcjudicial II tine question were
douitfl one upon which mind, best qiailei 10 uc
tcru,in. il wef', not agreed. no Wise court WOuin
nronounce an adverse judgment. 80 .
The connsc for the respondents held that the
combination crclted by " fne SUGAR Eeiinefies Com
Many deed being njuri0u, to trade ana commerce.
L y criminal conspiracy and an lndciaDle Onencc'
Thai the combination is ncAcrual To MAINTAIN prices
ahove the normal rate. because ~ ls impossbl" loi
the combination to monOpOze the production ~ le
rnod .ucar The example OF the standard Company,
adduccd A, an Instance Of the reduction Of price, by
a combination. involves the mlA\ 81 the peuto
urlnclpi i'm assuming the very proposition 10 be proved
namely that the reduction OF the price was IN con
.eDu,.,rc Of the combination.
IN. argument Was unfinished when the Court OF
Appcals adjourned.