Waterbury evening Democrat., 1906-12-20
Attorney General Meyer Begun Action Tc.Oay in Supreme
 Court of New York
MADE A BIG PROFIT
The Trust Bought Up Independent Companies and Made 71 Per Cent oa the Money
 Invested.

Albany. N. Y.. Dec 20.-Attor- ncy General Julius Meyer, in the name of the people of the state of New York to-day, began an action against the American Ice company in the supreme court of New York coun- ty, for the dissolution of the~socalled 'Icc Trust"
 X summons and complaint issued here last night was forwarded to the New York city representatives of the attorney general for service to-day upon the proper officials of the con- pany.
 The complaint alleges as princi- pal feature of the scheme and ar- rangement," by which the company secured practically monopoly of the natural and artificial ice output and disturbance especially i'll greater New York and the communities in that vicinity that it secured control of the Maine ice fields, and caused q reduction there last year of the us- ,lal harvest from a million and a half tons to one.third of that amount. The other sources of supply are alleged to be similarly controlled.
 The key to the ice situation in New York city Is pointed out as lying in the company's control of the Ice Bridges" or landing depOts, by which means. 1t Is alleged, the company Is enabled to fix the price of Ice, re- sulting last summer in an increase from $1.cO ton at the bridges to g and $6 q ton to the independent deal CTS, who are alleged to be controlled hy the company, and who supply the retail trade and the push-cart dealers through whom the poor in the con- gcsted districts receive ice.
 Correspondence of the company with its agents and others is quoted fin the complaint to show that at the very time when the company was urging is customers to. be careful in their consumption of ice owing to the shortage of supply, 1t was informing fits agents that the Ice sitIatiOn from the company's standpoint was satisfactory. and that offers were-ke- ine received from various sources,
 .me-iqliy from Maine inder endcnt producers, of ample supplies. and the company was st that time refusing to accept these offers on any terms. It is contended that the efforts of tue company were designed to create a popular impression that an ice famine was impending. in order to .forestall public clamor against a contemplated enormous increase In the price to consumers. which increase did in fact take place.
 It is declared by the attorney gem eral that the American Ice company had agree tmeuts with various tnde- pendent concerns to prevent their en- tering the field of competition, iu pro. duction or distribution of either nat ural or artificial Ice.
 "The plaintiff alleges upon inforlna- lion and belief" says the complaint for instance. that during the har- yesting season of 1905-1908. there was abundant ice suitable for har- yestlng fin the Kennebec and Penob- scot rivers. mud in tue ponds ana lakes near these rivers. and tue sea coast os Maine; that these sources of surply of ice foy the city of New York werc almost entirely owned or controlled by the defendant, and that inc defendant. during said season of Ina- lo06. secured control of sources of supply not previously controlled oy if, by means of purchase. lease, agree ments aud otherwise
 Several os the alleged agreements of the American Ice company with competitors are given in detail. The complaint sets forth that as result of these various measures. designed to restrict the supply, of ice, with the resulting alleged fictitious price to the consumer. the company was in position to refuse an oner of large supply of ice from Hobbins. pi,atush & Chalmers of Bowdoin- ham. Ne. in a letter quoted as saying on March a. 1906:
 We have gotten along SO we'll with our storage of Ice that We are not prepared to name you price for your ice either in the house nor f. o. b."
 This plaintiff further alleges. up- on information and belief" said the complaint. that on the 30th day of June. 1906. the total assets Of the American Ice company were sfs.- 325.4ss. of which s33.2so.s0s rep resented no tangible asset. but vas good will That on or about De- eember i. 1906. this defendant paid d dividend to its stockholders of 2 per cent upon the preferred capital stock of the defendant"
 The attorney general alleges that the company's ice harvested during she season Of 1s0s-is0e cost only .s to S cents ton of 1000 pounds: the transportation cost between 3s cents a tor on the Hudson river and e to so cents from Maine: while artificial ice vas produced in Nev York city al an average Of e1-59 a ten. and yet the company increased It's price Ia New York city from e1-2e so ss per ton at the Ice bridges dur lag the summer
 The complaint further alleges "thzf the sveraxe price for nles of lee 5urire the nosfh of July. 1ses. vss es7f per toe. proju<inR- e this is 'nforne1 nnd belIevss. s1 per ce.f net pru1t on total tusisem osns by ths enfendsnts Nev Yox1 oppartn<ss eurl1o t>s nsafn.~ m|