The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-02-09
Sugar Trusts Secretary-Treasure
Examined at Length by the New
York Investigating Committee.
ORDERED TO PRODUCE BOOKS
TO SUPPORT HIS STATEMENTS RE-
GARDING THE BIG MONOPOLY.
Corporations a Great Benefit, Accord
ing to Mr.. Searles-TObaccO Trust
to BE PrObed Next.

secretry-treasurer of the American Sugar
refinery Company, hand to-day
when the LeXow joint legislative commit
| tee on trusts met in this city. Mr.. Searles
| left his home in Brooklyn for Canton. o.,
| last Thursday evening after having been
| served with subpoena and the committee
| was disposed at its sitting on Friday to
| declare him in contempt and take steps
! for his punishment. Mr.. Searles was warm
| ly greeted by the members of the commit
| tee. Lawyer Edward NJ. Shepard, arrived
| soon after, and Immediately entered into
conversation with the prospective witness.
Before taking the stand Mr. Searles, at
Senator LeXOw'S request made statement
| that he only received the subpoena as he
was on his way to take train and that he
| felt it was his duty first to attend to the
| business hand at the time. Senator
| Lexow reprovingly told Mr.. Searles that
| a subpoena of the committee could not be
| ignored by the millionaire or by the poor
man. "At the close of your testimony, Mr..
| Searles," added Senator Lexow 1.-The COM
mittee will pass the question of con-
| tempt"
| Mr.. Searles said his occupation was the
sugar-refining business and that Of bank
president and president of several local cor
|
of the American Sugar-refinery Company.
| He said that he purchased and held all the
| stock of the North River Refining Com
| pany. The purchase individual
| purchase he continued, and had no rea-
| ton as to the value of the property to
| the American Sugar-refinery Company.
| Their circumstances were somewhat pc
| cular, and, he added, the whole trans
| action was ventilated in the Court of APP
peals.
| Mr.. Searles gave the stereotyped reply,
| ''I cannot recall" to a series OF questions
| propounded by Senator Lexow in regard to
| the purchase of the North River Refining
| Company including the inquiry If the price
| was not about $S25000. Asked to the
| present wher aabouts of the companys
| books of that date. witness said it was
his opinion they were in the archives of
the subsidiary companies over which he had
! no control.
| was paid in the North River Refining Com
| pany case. We going to have it if it is
| in this world.
A BIG PROFIT.
| II have no figures at the present time by
which 1 could give you the exact figures"
said the witness, who recalled that the price
paid in for the stock of the North River
|
us it not true that you made $3.50, 900 over
| right the transaction"
| ut is not true. | did not make $3.50, 900
over night in the transaction
do you dispute that?"
81 do
Did you not consider when you were
taking the 100000 worth of certificates that
| you were taking their equivalent in value?
| 1T would be their value when they be-
came part of the consolidated stocks. 1t
| was my faith in their ultimate value that
| induced me to take Them.
| The witness said that the North River
| Sugar Refining Company was anxious to
| get cash instead of certificates and in order
| TO accommodate the company witness took
| the certificates off its hands. Witness
further said that the transaction had the
| acquiesence of the directors and stock
holders of the Sugar Trust. The witness
finally admitted that instead of receiving
| 500 600 worth of stock certificates from the
| North River Sugar Refining Company he
| only received $685. 600.
At this stage Stephen Little. the expert
| nounced himself and, on explaining to
| Senator LeXow that he in no wise was con-
| cerned in the corporation under inveStiga-
| tiOn was excused.
In reply to Senator Lexow Mr.. Searles
| denied that his purchase of the stock of
| the North River Sugar Refining Company
was to crush out competition in the sugar
market. In reply to another question wit
ness said he could not say definitely
|
stocks taken INTO the amalgamated trust
was less than s20.0OO.0O0.
rs it not a fact that the $50. 600 worth
| of stocks in the Sugar Trust only a
third of that figure in actual value?"
by actual value do YOU mean bricks
| and mortar?" inquired Mr.. Searles, who
finally stated that his mind was not suffi-
| GENTLY clear on the subject. Witness said
| he had not known the figures in the case
they We're available. Mr.. Searles said he
| presumed they could he supplied from the
| books of the company.
| How much did the four Brooklyn refin-
cries that were shut up receive i'm certifi-
| cateS?
Il don't remember the amount"
| HAVEMEYER WAS RIGHT.
WAS Mr.. Havemeyer mistaken when he
| said that the Sugar Trust had accepted the
figures and estimates of the various officers
and stockholders of the component COM
panies without investigation and issued GER
tificates on that basis?''
s''I think the statements of the reports of
the various companies were generally ac-
| copied as basis for estimating the value
of the property"
Mr.. Searles denied positively that his
| company controlled the price of sugar and
also allegations that it forced competitors
| to the wall by reducing prices in certain
| localities. He said the capital stock did
| not represent It's intrinsic value and that
the public only suffered in case of overcap-
| italization. THE companies first repre-
| senting the Sugar Trust were Havemever
| & Elder. with capitalization of $500 900:
| Dick & Meyer. 5000 eco. and others entered
| on n basis of 500, OO0 the witness said.
! Then the valuation of the property"
| said Chairman Lexow. was not correct as
| represented in the certificates, else the
| capital stock was false.
| The witness did not think so.
| DO you not, as business man. think the
| issuing of capital sock at figures that do
| not represent real ''alue is the principal
| vice of corporation?'
| II hardly think that Is the truth for the
! reason that the corporation law is awaited
| of by many parties associated in business
! simply TO provide for the distribution of in
| terests in the settling of business"
| In reply TO another question witness said
| he was Of the opinion that the Legislature
| should encourage the formation of corpora
| tons in the State rather than attempt TO
| drive them 10 other States.
| WAS the actual cash values of the vari-
| Gus companies that comprise the American
| Sugar-refinery Company Sl2 COO 900, and was
rot there $4,000 600 in certificates isSued?'
| There was no cash appraiSement of the
| actual value of the companies.
| ''Win you swear that the actual cash VAL
| ue represented more than total of S12-
| 600 009?"
| II should most assuredly."
| Asked by Chairman Lexow If he made
| report of the transactions OF the trust at
/ any time since its organization. witness
said the laws of the State of New Jersey
| did not require any such transaction. The
| laws Of the State of Massachusetts require
| dered there in 1885. Il do not understand
| that the laws the State y New York