New-York tribune., 1906-12-21
TO DISSOLVE ICE TRUST
ACTION BEGUN BY MAYER.
Summons and Complaint Sent Here
for Serzice on Com mpany's Officers.

Court Of New York County for the dissolution
of the so-caIled Ice Trust" a summons and
complaint issued here last night for
warded to the New York City representatives
Of the Attorney General for service on the
proper officials OF the company.
The complaint alleges a principal feature
Of the scheme and arrangement" by which the
company secured a practical monopoly of the
natural and artificial ice output and dstribu-
tion. especially in New York City and the COM
munities IN that vicinity that ii secured con-
troll Of the Maine ice field and caused a re-
duction there last year Of the usual harvest
from a million and a half tons 10 one-third OF
that amount The other sources of supply are
alleged 20 be similarly controlled.
The key 20 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 IL is alleged, the company is
enabled 70 fix the price Of ice. resulting last
summer IN an increase from 81 20 ton at the
bridges 10 SIS and So ton 10 the independent
dealers who are alleged 10 be controlled by the
company and who supply the retail trade and
the pushcart dealers through whom the poor in
the congested districts receive fee. It is said
that by the time the ice reached the poor Gus
toners OF these pushcart dealers it cost them
at the rate Of from SO to S14 ton.
Corresponoenoe Of the company with its agents
and others IS quoted in the complaint TO show
that a. the very time when the company was
urging SITS customers 10 be careful in their pur-
chase and consumption Of ice, owing to the
shortage Of supply. It was informing its agents
that the ice situation from the company's point
Of view was satisfactory, and that offers were
being received from various sources. especially
from Maine independent producers. Of ample
supplies and the company was at that time re-
1using TO accept these offers on any terms. 1t
IS contended that the efforts of the company
were designed TO create popular impression
that an Gee famine impending in order to |
forestall public camor against a contemplated
enormous increase In the price TO consumers, |
which increase did in fact take place.
It is declared by the Attorney General that on |
she Hudson River the American Ice Company |
owns all except seventeen Of the 141 ice houses |
and that il contracted with the Mountain Ice |
company. operating in New Jersey and Penn |
sylvanis 10 restrict its sales in Brooklyn where
by the free pursuit Of the ice business in that |
borough was prevented; that it had like agree |
snents with the New Jersey Ice Company, the /
Berkshire Ice Company. of Massachusetts. and |
various independent concerns along the Hudson /
River and elsewhere TO prevent their entering |
the field OF competition in production dis !
tribution Of either natural artificial ice.
The methods alleged TO have been pursued by I
the company include purchase. lease traffic
devices restrict output of both kinds of ice
and limitation of distribution and sale especially
in and about New York City
ABUNDANT ICE FIT FOR HARVESTING.
The plaintiff alleges upon information and
belief" says the complaint for instance, that /
during the harvesting season Of 1S05-'O6 there
was abundant ice suitable for harvesting in the /
Kennebec and Penobscot rivers and in the |
ponds and lakes near these rivers and the sea
coast Of Maine; that these sources Of supply |
OF ice for the city Of New York were almost !
entirely owned controlled by the defendant |
and that the defendant during said season of |
19oo-'oi secured control Of sources Of supply |
not previously controlled by il by means of |
purchase. lease. agreements and otherwise"
Several Of the alleged agreements of the !
American Ice Company with competitors are |
outlined in detail; that with the Murtha- -Risley-
schildWachter Ice Company. for example, cover
Ing three years from May "a, 1904, specifying, |
q is alleged. that the latter company would |
not sell ice TO any one Of the drivers who now |
ere or who hereafter may be employed by the |
defendant either while said persons are in the |
employ OF the defendant or after their connec- |
ton Herewith shall have been severed, except |
upon and with the written consent Of said de- |
fendant so TO do; that the said Murtha- -Risley-
schildwachter Ice Company shall not acquire |
other additional bridges for the sale or hand
ling Of ice, and that it win not canvass or at
tempt 70 acquire any of the trade held. served |
or supplied with ice by the defendant during
said term, and in and by said agreement this de-
1endant agreed with the said Murtha- -Risley-
Schildwachter Ice Company that during the
said term IL would not canvass the trade OF the
said Murtha- Risley-Schildwacht Ice Company,
except at the price 10 be agreed upon by both
parties"
The complaint set forth that. as a result Of
these various measures. designed to restrict the
supply OF ice which might reach New York City,
with the resulting alleged fictitious price the
consumer. the company was in a position TO re-
fuse offer Of large supply of ice from Rob
hins, Dilatuah & Chalmers. Of Bowdonhaln.
Ne. In letter quoted as saying, March %,
we have got along so well with our storage
Of ice that are not prepared TO name you a
price for your ice either in the house or O. b."
The next day the company said, through its
Philadelphia department, quoted in the COM
plaint: There Is great deal of ice offering
now" and a letter dated April 4 said TO its
Baltimore department: Altogether I think the
prospect is most favorable for the company and
we have made up our minds 10 go ahead selling
see as fast as people want and willing to
pay the price for #"
ASSETS WERE S4G3254Ss.
This plaintiff further alleges, upon informa-
tion and belief" says the complaint, that on
the 5oth day Of June. 1906. the total assets of
the American Ice Company were SAG, ,325 4Ss of
which S33.260,606 represented no tangible asset,
but was good WILL That on or about December
J. 1906, this defendant paid a dividend to its
stockholders OF per cent upon the preferred
capital stock Of the defendant"
The Attorney General alleges that the COM
pany's ice harvested in the season OF 19O5-O6
cost only % 10 30 cents ton OF 1000 pounds;
the transportation cost between 30 cents a
ton on the Hudson River and 45 10 SO cents
from Maine while artificial ice was produced
in New York City at average price of 81 80
a ton; and Yet the company increased its price