New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-10-31
THE SUGAR TRUST FIGHT.
A SAVAGE ATTACK ON THE MANAGEMENT
OF THE TRUSTEES.

A SAVAGE ATTACK ON THE MANAGEMENT
OF THE TRUSTEES.
THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AND F1NAN-
oIAL STATEMENT MADE PUBLIc-CRITI-
CIsMs IN WALL STREET.
An important argument upon matters feiatlng
to the Sugar Trust, especially In regard 10 the
Injunction which prevents the reorganlzatlon' I'LL"
the application for receiver, was heard Dy Judso
Pratt yesterday In the Supreme Court In brooKyh'
He reserved decision, but made on order modi1ylne
the temporary injunction 30 far as TO permit t,c
publication Of the plan Of reorganization ana one
assets and liabilities of the Sugar Refneries CON-
pany.
Affdavits and arguments were presented 1or
five hours The Trust was represented by John r.
Parsons. Elihu Root and Edward NJ. Shepard.
W. H. johnson appeared for NASH Spaulding q
Co., which firm was represented by Henry ~
Reid, and John L. Hill appeared for Duncan
Cameron, who secured the preliminary injunction.
John B. Gleason, who seeks to be defendant IN
the proceedings of the trustees 70 wind
up the Trust, appeared in his own be-
half. Theodore, A. Havemeyer. president OF
the Sugar Refneries Company, and John Il.
Searles, jr, secretary and treasurer were the most
irtc estcd spectators. Mr.. Cameron did not ap-
pear, Notwithstanding the strongly expressed de-
sire Of the counsel for the Trust to see him.
Mr. Reid's affidavit was presented. WHOM
showed that Nash, Spaulding & Co., who were
named in the proceedings as co-defendants were
in no way connected with the Sugar Trust. and
were q rival firm with their own refinery, al
though holding IL 900 shares Of the certificates
Of the Trust.
An elaborate affidavit was presented from Mr.
Searles, in which he circumstantially denied The
allegations made by Mr.. Cameron in the appllca-
ton for the preliminary injunction on OctoDer IA.
He declared that the trustees had been actuated
by desire to further the best interests Oh the
certiGcate.holders and that the action of Cameron
had deprecated the market value and had operated
against the interests of the certfcate-holders
He denied that In passing the October dividend
the trustees used their personal knowledge against
the certificate holders. The trustees had acted
promptly upon the decision of the Court Of APP
peals, which they had done all In their power to
hasten, and as soon as 1t was announced plan OF
reorganization was set on foot. and 1t was ready
to be made public with statement OF assets ana
liabilities. In view of this plan it was decided TO
pass the October dividend, because there was
doubt whether it could be legally declared, and
the decision was QnnOuUCtu Cie way ~ ""o HH'AN
It was also denied that the trustees held any raw
sugar.
Mr.. Hill asked if the papers in the case showed
how the passing of the October dividend was
made public. When told that they did not, Mr..
Hill offered to waive the clause in the injunc-
ton which prevented the making public of the
plan of reorganization. provided it was done in
omen court This was not agreed to, and the
arguments were heard.
Elihu Root argued against the appointment OF
receiver as this would injuriously affect the inter-
csts involved There was no need OF It, The
trustees could 90 ahead and carry out the plan
of reorganization.
aHow can they 60 on without decree p asked
Jadte Pratt. 80 80
MFR. Root said that they could not: but he said
that no one could manage the business better
than Mr.. Havemeycr. Mr. Matheson, or Mr..
Scar,es, and they were the committee representing
the certifcatc-holders.
John b. Gleason, who asks to be made a de-
fcndant in the friendly proceedings begun by the
trustees to wind up the Trust. argued his side of
the case and wanted the certifcate-holders repre-
sented in the plan of reorganization
John L. Hill argued for the continuance Of
the injunction secured by Mr.. Cameron and the
appointment receiver. He denounced the
trustees OF IDc ubb III ScDTCHlHS anu S'iiu
that although they professed that their con-
sciences would not permit tfem to continue to
manage the Trust in July. in October they wcrc
trying to reorganize it.. He thought it required
explanation that there was S3G, ,000, 600 worth Of
property, and it had never been listed on the
Stock Exchange. receiver should be appointed,
because there was no title in the property. In
all equity and good conscience it belonged to the
certificate holders In conclusion Mr. Hill said that
there had never been such scandal as the Sugar
Trust s errd to exist to beguile the public in his
experience of fifty years. If n receiver was not
appointed there no assurance that the GER
tilcatc-hoders would be satisfied that justice
would be done. In view Of the conflicting state
ments referee ought to be appointed to get at
the facts.
w. II. johnson denied any colluson between
Nash, Spauldng & Co. and the Trust. His clients
held $l,OOO.O00 worth Of the certificates
and Duncan Cameron only held 100000
This litigation was simply to vex and
annoy property Of par value of Sj0,OOO,0O0
and actual value Of S3J,OOO,OOO. No one Of
the 500 certitcates-holders had joined with Mr..
Cameron, and all the others were satisfied. His
proceedings had caused a loss Of 100000 In
values, and tied up millions of dollars worth Of
property in the interests of stock obbers, thmblc-
rlggerS anu tnrec-Caru-InOnte men. Ills Cllcnto
wanted to go on with the reorganization to suit
themselves.
John Z. Parsons asked for immediate action in
view of the magnitude Of the interests lnvoired.
There was no allegation against the trustees
that was not denied. He asked that the iniunc-
ton be dissolved and the application for re-
ceiver be denied
Mr.. Hill argued in reply, and secured from the
opposing counsel denial Of the statement that
Mr.. Reid was a trustee Of the new company to
be formed to take up the work Of the trust.
Rv ograemnpt Iudge Pratt then modified the in
Junction so as to permit of the publication OF the
reorganization plan and the assets and liabilities
and reserved his decision on the motions ntiors
him in regard to the injunction and receiver
The financial statement and plan Of reorganiza-
ton, which the Court permitted to be made public
were not published In Wall Street until the ciose
81 l-2, rose to SO 5-s. and. after a gradual de-
cline Of over per cent. rallied in the @ Iaso