The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-02-16

New York, Feb. 15-The joint IegisIa-
tive committee appointed to investigate
the existence of trusts and monopolies in
the state of New York met again this
morning.
John E. Searles, secretary and treasurer
of the American Refining company, was
on hand early. The first witness called
was James Post, commission merchant
of this city. He represented the two
eastern concerns that were supposed to be
in competition with the American Sugar
Refining company. These were the Ma
tional company and the Mollenhauer
| company.
The witness admitted that while he
represented the 7. H. Howell. Son &-
| Co. and the Mollenhauer company in
\ sugar dealings he sometimes had the
one company competing against the other
| because il occasionally happened that
/ the one company wanted to buy and the
other wanted to sell.
The product of both these concerns
IS competed for at the same time in your
| Office, is that what you mean to say2'
Yes. that sometimes happens
Senator Lexow then questioned the wit
ness about the factOry's agreement.
1T is the same as that of the American
Sugar Refining company, with the eX
ceDtion that We do not require an affi-
! davit to get the rebate of three-sixteenths
of a cent per pound
The witness then stated again that he
did not think any of the refiners made
quarter of a cent profit last year.
And yet the factory gets three-six-
teenths of a cent rebate when the re-
finer does not make a quarter of cent?"
asked Senator LeXow.
That's so" replied the witness.
DO you want US to believe that?"
Yes, sir
HOW PRICE is FIXED.
The witness then said that the price Of
sugar was fixed by the daily state of
the market and not by the refining COM
panies- He explained that the quality
rate-bOok accepted by the grOcers and the
companies Only dealt with the freight.
This contract. the witness admitted. was
70 stamp out competition. but was equal
iy for the benefit of the grocer and the
consumer, because sugar was sold to
everybody at the same price.
John E. Searles next took the stand.
After stating that he did not recOllect
having testified at his previous examin-
alton that the price of sugar was de-
pressed last year, he said that they were
not running to the fun extent last year.
Twelve rehneries We're not operated. He
admitted that his company had in s,ja-
temptation the purchase OF the United
Sugar Regning company OF Cam
den. The only reason witness would
give for this contemplated purchase was
that his company might be able TO utilize
it.
The witness was then asked why the
American Sugar Refining company had
purchased the Baltimore refinery in 1896.
We thought it was a good purchase
ana that sugar cOulu pc coHNeihthtIS us
tributed from that point to the south and
west. he replied
Now, is it not a fact that whatever
plant has been acquired by you has been
a competing plant?'
THAT is correct
In reply to another question. the wit
ness denied that the company could close
all the factories in any state and still
be able to supply the country: also that
there was a special sum set aside for sup
porting idle refneries.
In reply to questions about the OrSani-
cation of the sugar trust. witness said
there were about 5000 shareholders when
the original American Sugar Refining
company was formed. There We're about
1900 now
'sWho sold the holders the additional
5000 shares of stock2
1T was sold on the stock exchange
And you have recapitalized the stock
from 100000 to $780, 1000 and increased
the ownership by S,0cO?'
That's So
NOW. wHY?'
Now. why did you not let the public
get chance at the stock when it was
owned by 100 people. and not wait until
it was increased in nominal value?'
LAS I explained in my previous testi-
mony the stock before the consolidation
was in the hands of a few private peo-
pie and the great public could not set
Senator Lexow at this juncture an
nounced a recess until 2:3O o'clock
Before Mr.. Searles left the stand the
chairman asked him to bring the books
of the company after recess
After recess Mr.. SearleS resumed the
stand. Witness said that the only re-
tailers his company ever sold sugar to
were large concerns
as it not fact that you have an
agreement with the Wholesale Grocers'
association"
mo. sir. it is not We have an agree
ment. however, with wholesale grocerS in
regard to the freight from the refining
point to the point of sale
Senator Lexow wanted the witness 10
admit that under the code of rules
adopted by the wholesale grocers. the
American Sugar Refining company con-
trolled the price of sugar all over the
country, but Mr.. Searles could not see it
in that way.
But it is your agents who nave formu-
lated these rules?r queries Mr.. Lexow.
ar Is the wholesale grocers who have
formulated them" was Mr.. SearssG. Vs-
The witness gave the items of the
sugar trust. There were fifteen COM
2anses. and it amounted to S6. $50. 900. He
ss.d he had no record of the amount OF
certificates issued for the stock
LEXOWS GIMLET.
..Then." said Mr. Lexow. 1.-The books
that show an increase of S43.0O0. 900 from d
capital OF SoUOO.VUO are not IN eXlSlence-
That is so. sir.
M Searles also declared that he did
rot know the whereabouts of the trust
deeds which showed the amount of GER
t:ficates distributed among the Is COM
panies. He could not recollect the amount
of certificates that went TO each COM
pany. Mr.. Searles explained that there
was no necessity for the certificates or
books when the new concern was formed
and he did not think it singular that they
had disappeared
The follow:-S is the capital stock of
the 10 original companies that composed
the sugar trust, according to the witness: :
Havemeyer & Elder .-----....--.--$ 100000
Dick & Meyer ......-........- 200. 900
De Coatro OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES $4,000
MolIer & Sierck ............... 10000
Orynaud ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. 100 900
F. o. Mathieson & Wiechers.... 100000
BROOKLYN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. 100000
Hsvemeyer ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. 1,0O0. 600
Forest CITY ................... 100000
Boston ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. $4,000
Standard .................... LOCO. 600
Raw State ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. 225 .O00