The morning call., 1890-06-25
SUGAR-TRUST CASE.
judgments Against the Combination Affirmed
by The Court Of Appeals.


peals this morning handed down decision
in the case of the North River Refining
Company (the sugar-trust case), dismis5ing
with costs an appeal from the order of the
special term denying in part defendant s
motion for n stay of proceedings. The de-
cisiOn is strongly against the trust. The
judgments of the lower courts in dissolving
the trust are fully affirmed. This fact was
not apparent in the first decision handed
down at 10 o'clock, the decision being so
clouded with teehnicalties that its true
intent was not apparent
At II o'clock, however. the clerk an
nounced that there had been mistake in
preparing the decision. His deputy clerk
had LETT out the most important feature of
the decision, viz: the fact that the court
had affirmed in toto the decision of the
lower courts.
NEW YORK, June 24-To-day's decision
on the sugar-trust matter is side issue of
the main question as to the legality of the
trust. 1t is on an appeal from an order re-
fusing a stay of proceedings to prevent the
receiver from taking possession and dispos-
ing of the property of the North River
Sugar Refining Company, and dismisses the
stay. The receiver may now dispose OF the
company's property. The decision rs to
the legality of the trust may be handed
held until October.
A later dispatch from Saratoga says the
decision in the Court of Appeals has set
tied the main question at issue in the Sugar
Trust. General Pryor, who represents the
Attorney-General in the cases brought
against the trust, says the effect of the de-
cision is to destroy one member OF the trust,
the North River Sugar Refining Company
and now nothing remains but to sue each
member of the trust. The proposed trans
fer by the Sugar Trust OF the property to a
corporation under the laws of Connecticut
or New Jersey may not be easily accom-
plished. The court has already granted an
injunction against the trust providing
against just such move. The next step
Will be taken by the AttOrney-General. The
action of the court in San Francisco in the
case OF the American Sugar refinery VIII
give the Sugar Trust people there some
comfort, for it may be a precedent in the
present cases. The price of sugar certif-
Gates was well maintained after the publi-
cation of the final decision. They were held
firmly between seventy-one and seventy
wo.1TheOdore Havemeyer of HavemeyerS
& Elder said: "The trust will not dis6and.
1t will be so altered as to bring the organl-
zation within the letter and spirit of the
law. There is nothing about the opinion,
so far as l know, preventing the consolida-
ton OF the rehneries."
Supreme Court Justice Barrett, referring
to the decision, said: This is a matter
in which l have taken greater interest, l
think, than in any other which has come
before me. This question of trust is, |
think, almost of as much consequence as
slavery" On the street the sugar people
and those interested in tile trust appeared
to be more amused than Disconnected by
the decision OF the court. They say the
trust has not received its death-blOw, but
will still continue. Only the "method" of
doing business will be affected.
ALBANY, June PA decision of the
Court Of Appeals in the case of the People
vs.. the North River Sugar Refinery Com
pany, written BY Judge Finch, was handed
down to-day. 1t says:
The judgment sought against the defendant Is
one OF corporate death; state which created
asks US 10 destroy and the penalty invoked rep
Tesents Ihe tXireme vigor OF the law. Two ques-
lions oDeu before US: First, has tile defendant
corporation exceeded or abused its powers aud
second does that excess or abuse threaten or
harm tile public welfare? We fiud In evidence that
it has become an Integral part and element OF a
combination which possesses over It absolute
control aud dictates the extent and
manner and IeIms OF its entire business activity
l he defendant corporation has lost the power
10 make dividend and Is compelled to pay over
It's net earnings 10 master whose servant IL
has become. Under an order from that mas
ter, il refused 10 refine sugar, and by
so much has lessened the supply upon
the market. IL cannot stir unless It's master ap-
proves, aud Yet ii is entitled 10 receive from the
earnings of other rehneIies i'm assed as profits in
Tie treasury OF Tue UOdfQ, llS bTOtO
share for division among its own stockholders,
who now own substitute certificates. In return
for this advantage il has become liable to become
mortgaged, not Tor It's own corporate benefit
alone, but TO supply with funds a controlling
board when that board reaches out for other
coveted rehneries. All this is admitted by de-
feudani.
The decision, after further considering
the formation of the trust, says:
The defendant could have prevented It being
founded by refusing TO register or recognize the
legal transfer OF stock. They should have APP
peal TO the law, thus shatering the trust at
the outset. The question 10 be determined Is
whether the conduct Of the defendant in aiding
10 form the trust was Illegal. In all these points
which have been reviewed IL is found The cOrpo-
ration was DOING the public an injury and, In
avoiding the State law which cOmpels the reser-
walton OF corporate rights, proved unfaithful 10
It's charter. The present corporation or trust
puts upon the market capital stock, proudly
dehaut OF the actual values and capable of un-
limited expansion. Ii Is one thing for State TO
respect lhe rights OF ownership, and quite an.
other thing to add to tile possibility OF the fur
thor extension OF their consequence, by creating
artificial authorities IN The management OF such
aggregatlonS, Ii corporations could combine
and mass their forces in solid trust, with little
added risk to capital already iu, without limit to
magnitude i tempting aud easy road is opened
10 enormous combinations, vastly exceeding in
number aud strength any possibilities of indi-
vidual ownership. The State seeks 10 protect
individuals rather than combinations.
Concluding the opinion says:
Tie defendant corporation has violated It's
charter and failed in the performance OF us cor
poraJe duties, and that in respect 50 material
and important as to justify a Judgment OF disso-
lution. We enact besides that In this State there
can be no partnerships of separate and iude
pendent corporations, whether directly or indi-
reclly, through the medium OF trusts, and no
substantial consultations which avoid and dis
regard statutory provisions aud restraints, but
that manufacturing corporations must be and
remain several as they were created, or one I'M
der the statute. The judgment appealed from Is
affirmed with costs.