St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-02-14
PROBING THE TRUST.
President Greenhut appears Be
fore the Investigation
Committee.
He Denies That the Distilling and
Cattle Feeding Company Is
Trust.

trust investigation was continued today.
President Greenhut, of the Distilling
and Cattle Feeding company, was ex
amined. Before Mr.. Greenhut took the
stand, Mr.. Stevens, the attorney OF the
company, asked permission to make a
statement. He wished to enter pro-
test against an inquiry into the affairs
of the DiStilling ana Cattle Feeding
company. The company was corpora
ton under the laws of Illinois. IL was
a manufacturing company, and author
lied to sell its products as other COM
panies do. 1t was not engaged in any
unlawful business. It's methods of
doing business differed from that of
other companies so far as rebate vOuch-
erS used by it was concerned.
Mr. Greenhut testified that he had
been president of the DiSulling and
Cattle Feeding company since its organ
originally had eighty distil!erles. They
were located in Chicago. Cincinnati,
Peoria, Milwaukee, st. Paul, Omaha
and other places. They were all bought
by the corporation at the time of its or
ganizatiOn. Probably One-half of the
original plants were diSmantled. The
small ones and those in unfavorable To-
calities were closed and the large ones
run to their full capacity. The
company had no agents, their
sales being made direct to whole
sale dealers. A rebate was given to
customers provided their dealings with
the company was cOntinuOuS-that is,
continuous for six months, the period
covered by the rebate vouchers. His
company marketed pure spirits, the
nd adi
by wholesale dealers and other pur-
chaserS.
In answer to question by Mr. Stock
dale, he said that Nh Gibson resigned
shortly after the Dewar matter was
made public. The courts took the mat
ter up later. MIR. Boatner asked what
was the object of the organization.
Witness replied that there were too
many diStilerieS for the wants of the
country. good many of which were
built in expectation Of an increase in
the export trade. Mr.. Boatner asked if
the purpose was not to reduce the pro-
duction. Mr.. Greenhut replied that it
was to do away with destructive COM
petition. In reply to number of ques-
tons by Mr.. Boatner, he said that his
company was not q trust. He knew of
no trusts. A trust, as he understood it,
ent individuals or corporations to limit
production and keep up prices. His
company found that they could operate
fewer diStillerieS at a less cost, supply
the demand by working them i'll
their full extent, supply their goods
to the trade at less cost; this was one
of the objects. The rebate vouchers
were now issued directly from the com
pany's office. Heretofore they had gone
through the hands of the wholesale
dealers, who furnished them to their
customers.
Mr.. Boatner said it had been stated
before the committee that the price of
whisky had been advanced % cents a
gallon when the large amount of these
vouchers were out. Mr.. Gibson replied
that at the time Of the advance no more
than usual were out. The price had
before congress looking to an in
creasing of the internal revenue
tax on liquors. His company
had nothing to do with the
supply or manufacture of compounds or
essences used in the adulteration of
liquors. The addition of essences did
not iniure whisky: it was simply done
to cater to the tastes of the trade. This
was done by dealers having rectlfers'
licenses. DlStlllerS were not allowed to
do it. His company had never done so.
Mr.. Boatner asked him if his company
was not the successor to what was
known as the whisky trust. Witness
replied yes. and Mr.. Boatner asked
what the difference in the two compa-
MES was.
Mr.. Greenhut replied that the distill-
erS who were organized as trust are
separate and under board of trust who
issued trust certificates. They held
stock in the trust and could control the
selection of officers and the affairs of
the concern. Its object was to prevent
over production.
Mr.. Boatner called Mr.. Greenhut's at
tention to the testimony of Mr.. Dewar
regarding the blowing up of the Shu-
feldt distillery, and Informed him that
Mr.. DeWar was now in Washington, and
would be called if he wished to cross
examine him. Mr.. Greenhut replied
that he saw no use of doing so. De-
wars testimony did not refer to his
company. He did not know the man
and had never seen him. Gibson had
retired in consequence of the matter,
and the company had nothing to do
with him afterwards. They did not
pay any of his expenses connected
with the trial of the matter by courts.
The committee adjourned until tomor-
| row.