New-York tribune., 1909-06-30
UP TO WASHINGTON''
SUGAR INQUIRY DECISION.
Indictment Expert Goes to Consult
the attorney General.

Up 10 Washington was the way the question
Of the continue ton of the investigation Of the
American Sugar Refining Company disposed of
the federal building yesterday. Oliver Pagan
indictment expert of the Department Of Justice
left this city Monday night TO see Attorney Cen
eraI Wiclzersbam This was after Henry A. Wise
United States Attorney had gone over transcript
of the with one of his assistants. Mr.. Pagan
carried a rough draft OF the proposed indictments
which had been prepared before the visit ol the
three counsel. John Z. Miburn. for the American
company; John VI. Bowers. for John E. Parsons
and William D. Guthrie for Gustav E Kissel Ihe
indictment expert also had a copy of brief sub
nlitted by Mr.. Guthrie.
It vas learned yesterday that this brief did not
deal only with the time limit clause of the Sherman
act There were three clauses to 1.-THE statute
of limitation immunity resulting from the suit of
the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Company against
the American company in New Jersey the
suit IN this city recently tentatively settled. and
the assumed controlling effect of the decision OF
the Supreme Court of the United States In the
case of the government against the E {. Knight
company and others
While more stress laid in the brief on the
statute Of limitation. the immunity part was thor-
oushly discussed. and II understood yesterday
that it might influence the government more than
the time limit clause in reaching oeclSIo"
whether to continue the inquiry
In summing up the immunity question as ab-
solving the company from prosecution under me
Sherman act the brief said that Messrs Farso''s'
suit and produced numerous important documents
Nfr Thomas who is now president of the American
conpany. furnished the minutes Of the meetings OF
the directors and stockholders Of the company at
which the transactions involved in the FerhSyI-
vania ccmpany's suit were made
Mr. Parsons furnished the correspondence oe-
tween himself and Samuel Untermyer relative TO
the settlement Of the 81 25o0o0 loan by the COM
many to Adolph Segal. who held and surrendered
the controlling interest in the pennsylvania com
nanv consisting Of 26.oO0 shares as part oI lne
security for the loan. Mr.. Kissel gave up the
erttnaI contract for the loan Of December
1oo2 the original proxies of the 26.ooo shares OF
stock and the letter Of indemnity to him OF Jan
nary, 1904 holding him free from any prosecutor
as : result of the loan if any should be orousi'I
The brief in relation to these facts, says:
1-rder these circumstances none of the documents
so produced in the said judiclal proCeeulii5S an
used against these several witnesses
It was on the knight case decision by the mo-
states Supreme Court that Attorney 'Ier2eTaI ro1
rarte based his refusal TO prosecute the AtheIi-'
con1panv for violation Of the sherman e'' -
.be transactions with segal. when requested 70 10
~. - cor-a II Earle fr receiver for the Penn
s,,1,,aDts con1nanv at whose instance the feSe"'
suit against the American company vas oi i"ue'il
The suit against the knight company ofoue ei-
first in the Circuit Court for the Eastern D's''0'
Of PENNSYLVANIA, was decided against 'he sus.. s.
,ent again decided adversely IN the United states
c,-cri, court OF Appeals. and January i, lsso-
decided in favor of the Knight company anl others
by the United States Supreme Court The otheT
defendants were the American company I"e
franklin Sugar Company. the Spreckels sugar re
anine Company and the Delaware Sugar Hcuse-
The suit cancel the contracts oy "li'tI
the stock of the Knight, Spreckels, Delaware ana
Franklin corporations was sold 10 the American
coropsnv through John Z Searles. jr.. in exchange
for American company stock. on the grohuo ulS'
E, vas in restraint Of trade. The Supreme Court.
ant rs
act complained Of related exclusively to the ac-
o,isition OF the Philadelphia property and the
sugar business in Pennsylvania. and bore no direct
relation TO interstate commerce or trade WIN f"'-
eign nations The fact that such oonnerc" was
ndirectIy affected was held not 70 bring the acts
in ouestssn within the meaning of the statute
i LAWYER intimately connected with federal prac-
ticA commended Mr. Wise yesterday Tor his eau
iion but said at the same time that Y ne "er"
the United States Attorney he would press Tor IN
dictments. and let the American company prove
that the continuation Of the loan 10 Segal was not
an overt act the same as the consummatton Of
the transaction IN December. 1919 He called az
tenton To decision in the Ochs case in Illinois.
under the Sherman act. in which similar situa-
ton existed The Supreme Court Of that state held
that:
The limitations applicable to a conspiracy begin gin
O run. not from the time defendant enters tle
same but from the time Of the commission OF MS
last overt act in furtherance Of the conspiracy
II was Salh Yesterday 'ild'' So i1l a. wv '''+'-
Of limitations was concerned. Mr. Wise probably
would hold the potency OF that decision as COW
ering the American case. The investigation OF the
American company was held UP yesterday, but may
be resumed before the end Of the week by the
federal grand jury. This will depend. however
the word brought from Washington by Mr.. Pagan
after his interview with the Attorney General
Mr. Wise sailed the Kaiser Wilhelm II yes
terday 10 be present at the Panama Canal pur-
chase investigations by counsel for The World
in Paris lie was not ready 10 say that the in
vestigation Of tie American Sugar Refining Com
pany would be dropped altogether The inquiry
would be continued, he said. with the hope that
some new evidence making indictment pos
sble might be found. Mr. Wise viii the
first week in August