New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-12-07
THE SUGAR TRUST IN COURT.
A DECISION IN ITS CASE EXPECTED SOON.
LITTLE PROBABILITY THAT IT WILL BE AGAINST
THE MONOPOLY THE GOVERN

MONOPOLY THE GOVERN
MENTs ARGUMENT.
IBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUHEl
Washngton Dec. 6--Thc opinion Of the Supreme
Court on the Sherman Antitrust law Is expected
any Monday nowadays and is awaited with great
interest The bill in the pending case was illed III
the Circuit Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in May
1892 with Z. c. Knight Co.. sugar refners, OF
Philadelphia. defendants, TO dissolve the sugar
Trust; or in other words. for injunction to pre-
vent that firm from continuing its arrangement with
the American Sugar Refinery Company. as the trus'
is legally known. which arrangement was alleged 10
be in violation Of the Act OF July ., $780, ITO pro-
tect trade and commerce against undue restraint
and monopoles
The bill was dismissed. The Court held that no
Federal question had been made out upon the proof
that although it was shown that the trust con-
trolled IS per cent Of the sugar refneries IN the
country it did not and could not constitute mo-
nopoy. for there nothing to prevent other peo-
pie or corporation from going into the business II
they chose do so, and. second. that there was
no evidence to show restraint in interstate COM
MERGE as the trust had never refused to sell sugar
to any one who desired to buy and had charged the
same price to everybody. 1t held also that the
public had suffered injury from the trust as the
sugar furnished from its reiineres was perfectly
pure and wholesome and sold at lower prices than
before
The decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court OF
Appeals last March. and by mutual consent was car
ried at once to the Supreme Court of the United
States and advanced on the docket so that 1t could
be argued at the opening of the present term The
Government was represented by Attorney-Genera
Olney. Solicitor General Maxwell and eN-Solicitor-
General Phillips. They argued that 1t was not nee
essary for the Government to show direct viola
ton OF the statutes that it sufficient TO show
the existence of a monopoly which threatened the
peace and welfare of the people and that the law
to prevent well as to punish. They held
that although its monopoly might be destroyed
by the establishment Of other reineries the Amer
lean Sugar Refining Company does actually con-
troll the manufacture and sale OF one Of the necessa
ries OF life and important article OF interstate
commerce. and has the power at any moment to
deprive the public OF its supply subject 1t to ex
The record in the case shows that the Sugar
Trust was organized In January ls' WIN C1
s Of o. 81 ;n sn4 BY Mcn IN the
AT that date It's capital stock had been incIeased
We're &Sl5 81 The prSduci Of sugar Tor the year
was over 500 ocooo pounds ana Inc prSf' ~, ~ s9
to 81 20. which signihed profit q NZ'sN"" M ne
total amount OF sugar consumed In the niiei
tons OF INV which $1,000 tons was imported
I By the o9h s"f hc or of h
nopoy. therefore. according to the areuneIt OF
The b ;, o IS the %'a and fNi
price of OF the grea; necessaries OF ne which
I iaon o' tSrousb interstate commerce The Govern
ment asked the supreme Court to reveTse ana set
aside the decree Of the lower court and grant an
Injunction compelling the American sugar Refinery
('Ompany 10 wind up Is affairs and relrquish It's
despotisin over the manufacture OF and commerce
in that article.
There is not much confidence among the members
OF the bar here that the judgment OF The supreme
Court will be favorable TO the Government IL Is
the general opinion that the lower court VIII be
sustained but even II II were reversed, the best
LAWYERS saw It is difficult to see how the monopoly
S can o e 5f Ss
was shown in court the Havemeyer Company nov
owns all existing factories and while the Court
hns mower under the sherman Antitrust law To
fine is officers 1900 and send them 10 jail FOR on
year il cannot compel them 10 sci or c.osc their
establishments.