The Hot Springs star. (Hot Spings [Hot Springs], Dakota [Dakota Territory, i.e. S.D.]) 1886-189?, 1890-07-04
the SUGAR rsusr powNrp.


a Deoision which Dlsturbs tie Have.
meyer Corporation.
The New York court OF appeals has
handed down . decision Affirming The judg-
mont Of dissolution against the North
River Sugar Refining company and declar-
ing the sugar trust an unlawful combina-
ton. Confusion arose about this result on
The street because the court sitting at Sara
toga, had also handed down q decision on
. subordinate point In the litigation and
the new got out somewhat IN this order:
First. the decision 10 adverse to the sugar
trust; second, but Il 10 only on : minor
point; third, but there 10 another decision
ON the main issue which declares the trust
illegal. The price OF the certificates varied
slightly in accordance. with these
items, but there was no tfouble. Esaotly
what plan the trustees have In hand for
recognising the trust can ~ yet not be
learned. Those interested wanted to SEQ
the opinion Of the court before speaking.
The procedure which it IL supposed the
attorney-general will follow will 30 to treat
each corporation In the trust % he has
treated The North River company and sue
Tor revocation Of ito charter. Gen. B. A.
Pryor. who Wa associated with the
astotney.general In the litigation, said on
hearing Of tho decision: This wa Q test
quit against trusts, and the courts have
decided that . trust to increase prices is
not only illegal, but that . company BY
becoming o member OF such o trust
forfeits it's charter. We have been
fighting this trust for over two years
now, and I AM very glad the matter 10
settled. Tho first thing I did was to
draw up . bill for it, suppression. which I
presented to the legislature, but II did not
take mo long to find out that our legisla-
tors in Albany were not a. much opposed
to trusts a. I was, 20 dropped that end
OF the matter. Then I tried the law and
found that BY its application I could have
the trust dissolved. The special term Of
the supreme court sustained Us and al.
though the sugar trust people brought the
case to the general term on appeal and
latterly to the court Of appeals, every
judgment has been In our favor" Gen.
Pryor said the receiver Of the North River
Sugar Refining Company would probably
sell out Its property as soon % he could
get q fair offer. The decision In the sugar
trust case was written BY Judge Finch, and
says:
The question 70 be determined 10 whether the
conduct Of the defendant company in aiding TO
form the trust was illegal. In all of the points
which were reviewed It ia found that the cor.
poratitn was doing . public injury, nj in
avoiding the state law which compels reserva-
tion of corporate rights proved unfaithful to
its charter aud duties. It 10 . violation Of law
for corporations to enter into a Partnership, 90
shown in the case Of Whittenton We. Upton, 10
Gray. 500. which furnishes tho reasons 1t
length. II the trust had been properly
formed as q corporation under the laws.
the twenty separate companies would
have been dissolved, and not remain In
existence O. IN this case. The present
corporation or trust puts upon the market
acapital stock defiant OF actual values and
capable Of unlimited expansion. Il corporations
can combine and mass their forces In q solid
trust with little added risk to capital already
In. without limit to magnitude, q tempting and
easy road is opened to enormous combinations,
vastly exceeding in number and streng b any
possibilities Of individual ownership. The law
seeks to protect individuals rather than com.
binations. tn defendant corporation has vio-
lated It's charter and failed in Che performance
of its corporate duties and that In respects SO
material and important az to justify judgment
of dissolution.