The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1897-02-11
THE TRUST INVESTIGATION.
LEXOW COMMITTEE TAKES AN
OTHER PEEP INTO THE SUGAR
TRUST WORKINGS.
Mr.. SEARLESOCCUP|ED WITNESS BOX
Subpoena 10 Bring the
Books Next Meeting Committee
Adjourned Till Saturday.

New York Feb. S.-Mr Senrcs, sec
rotary and treasurer Of the American
Sugar Refining company, was on hand
today when the joint legislative commit
Zee investigating trusts assembled. Mr..
Scarles left his home in Brooklyn for
Stanton, o.. last Thursday evening, after
having just been served with the subpoc-
M, and the committee was disposed at
ITS sitting on Friday 10 declare him in
contempt and take steps for his punish
sncnt. Mr.. Scarlcs was warmly greeted
by the members Of the committee. Law
yer Pnrs0n Of the Sugar Refining com
pany arrived shortly after and entered
INTO consultation with the prospective
witness.
Before taking the stand Mr.. Scarlcs,
~ Senator LcXow's request, made a
statement that he only received the sub
poem as he was on his way TO take u
train and he thought il his duty TO attend
80 the business on hand first. Senator
iTxow reprOvingIy told Mr.. Searles that
The subpoena of the committee could not
me ignored 10y the millionaire or the poor
man.
AT the close of your testimony" Mr.
lexow said, 'thc committee will pass
upon the question of contempt
Mr.. Scarlcs said his occupation was the
sugar refining business and that of bank
president and president of several local
corporations and secretary and treasurer
~ the Sugar Refining company
Mr.. Searles said he purchased and held
oil the stock Of the North River Refining
hs. IA ms ,pI t,,;I
nal purchase, he continued, and had no
relation ms to the value of the property
10 the Sugar Refining company. Their
circumstances were somewhat peculiar
and he added that the whole transaction
was ventilated in the court Of appeals
Mr. Searles gave the stcrcotyped an
swcr, 81 can not tell" to Il number of
questions propoundcd by Senator Lcxow
IN regard TO the purchase of the North
River refining company stock, including
the inquiry il the price was not about
S325,OOO. Asked as 10 the whereabouts
of the cOmpany's books at that time, wit
ness said he was of the opinion that they
were III the archives of the subsidiary
company, over which he had 10 control.
Now, you might as well tell us what
was paid for the North River Refining
company. We are going TO have il if it
s in this world"
by which ! could give you the exact fig
ares, said the witness, who recalled that
The price paid in for the stock of the
North River Sugar Refining company was
STO0000
lis il not true that you made $3.50 900
over night 10y the transaction"
1T is not true; did not make S.I1OOOO
over night in the transaction
DO you dispute that
II do"
Did you not consider when Won were
taking the 100000 worth of certificates
YOU Were taking their equivalent in
ValueT'
ut would he their value when they
hrcame u part of the consolidated stocks
1t was my faith in their ultimate value
that induced me 10 take them"
The witness said that the North River
Sugar Refining company was anxious 10
get cash instead of certificates and in
order 10 accommodate the company the
witness took the certificates off their
hands.
Witness further said the transaction
had the acquicsccnCc of the directors and
stockholders of the sugar trust The
witness admitted that instead of rccciy-
ing S7W,OO worth of stock certificates
from the North River Sugar Refining
company. he only received S595,0OO
~ inns SuiEt Sttphch iItli', lnc tN
pert accountant who had been subpoc-
naed announced himself and on explain
ing TO Senator Lcyow that he was in no
way connected with the corporation I'M
dlcr investigation was excused.
In reply to Senator LcXOw, Mr.. ScarlcS
denied that his purchase of the stock OF
ihc North River Sugar Refining company
was 10 crush out the company rs a com.
petitor in the sugar market.
In reply to another question, witness