New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-01-12
THE STGAR TIKI SITS ANSWER.
Az ARGUMENT TO SHOW THAT IT'S EXIST
ENCE Is LAWFUL.

ENCE Is LAWFUL.
Albany Jan. n The American Sugar Refining
Company today filed with Mtorney-Goneral Han
cock it, answer to the Application to him asking
tina. the company be restrained from doing bisl-
ness In This State. The application declares that
th. company IL a MONOPOLY, In violation of the
laws Of the State. The answer Of the company
was filed by John H. Parsons Of Newly ork conn-
81 FOR III. company. who makes general denial or
all the charges in the application ana asserts that
the proceeding IS merely scheme TO AFFECT the
value Of the stock in Wall Street. The answer CON
tinues.
Th- Sugar Refining Company Is Ncw-Jerse,y
corporh'ior. The organization OF me company III
pcas ~ this state IN the North River Sugar Rein
ng Company = case The act concerning corpora
lions In NrW Jersey in force when this company
Wa organized. provides that stock OF company
incorporated under the act may issue In payment
for manufactures and other property necessary ior
the business Of the company. ~ aiso IIoNueS t"dss
the company may purchaS" ana hold the Stock o., "r
other cororaons owning proP b y,nk arSor9
ton law 81 NewNork stat provides tndt tn' SY
Of stock corgoraton may isSe i9r P'y s a ar
lawful purposes OF the corporation II iuIlttI pro-
vid.s that stock corporaiion domestic OF lorrlsu
~ i ",o, r ,,d INT The stock Of the company
MAJ be issued for stock thus purchased
The business Of the American sugar Hennng en-
don II Is not oniy permitted. it - provided for
is such legislation. Whatever property me com
pany has was acquired under AMI in acc1riance
with such legislation The company denies that sucA
an INCORPORATION is osal consoliauon absoIp-
ton combination conspiracy.
The object If such lesaAlton Is TO encourage man,
ufariuring and other business on a large scale ah
10 permit IN. acquisition and Use 10y a COMPANY OK
all ih" property that IL needs Tor It's push,,S an
legislation recognizes that, 10y the economics ~,
savings which are made possible. business my ~
done At a profit which VIII temp; tlf use OF ''pl'i
furnish occupation To- Labor. AMI VII. IN tn ehI'
benefit purchasers. for tn" reason iHat, a. 'NF 90
cnr. las shown slch arrange nrttS result III i'-
1uctlou. not h. an increase ~ pre-.
\ comparison IN prices VIII show that Inc ave.
age prize u sugar for any ptr'rl.l p,iy' m' y.s
loss since IN. formation Of ihc company tliu l ~
before. There is not the slightest iounit'ol i,ll
the assertion that. since thc incorporation OF We
American Sugar Refining Company me pE'N-'uS,lH
existing firms have conducted their business IN me
name u that company The previously cN.SunS
companies transfer red their property 10 the Nci.
can Sugar Refining Company, Tor Whlrh tu1t., W.
issued the stock of this company, and the lhdNiuu
companies became dissolved
The company does the property "i a cor
pOratOn engaged In tht same business, IL Goes Hvl
control the output or price OF sugar Any one may
sell sugar. whether purchased from the company or
one may buy sugar from any other existing refinery.
The company has never made any aSre'nlrn, - t"r
contrary. The Court of Appeals In the Nortn XVII
Sugar Refining COmpanys case, rested ltS h",'slvll
a partnership, and that this was not permitted ny
It's charter As to the assertion that the sugar -
nnerlos Company was monopoly, or that IL Foia''I
the law In respect to competition ana restraint Oi
the trade the Court Of Appeals held mat the qu's.
ton WAS involved IN the case. IT Is true thdt IL
II practically impossible for manufacturers 10 dei
directly with a., retailers. At the present tune M
iobbers and all retailers, whose purchases are
pany at the same price. The company denies that
since its organization II has not made saIes OF SuSi
free from restrictions or restraint. ana aiso denies
that II has refused to sell sugar to retail dealers