The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1909-07-02
SUGAR TRUST
INDICTED BY
FEDERAL JURY
District Attorneys View of the
USeIeSSneSS of Prosecution
Not Conceded.
MEN AT THE TOP WILL
HAVE TO STAND TRIAL
PENlTENTlARY IF CONVICTION is
SECURED IN THE CASE OF THE
PRESIDENT AND OFFICERS.

New York. July The American
sugar heflnlng company, six Of IT'S di-
rectors and two other individuals, were
| indicted by a federal grand jury today
trade
The individuals indicted are Washing
T ton Is. Thomas, president of the Ameri-
can sugar Refining company; Arthur Do
] Jer and Charles f. Sneff and John +.
Parsons of New York; John Mayer Of
I MorristoWn, n j.. and George III. Fra
zler Of Philadelphia. all of whom are di-
! rectors of the company. Indictments also
were found against Gustave Kissel and
/ Thomas r. Halsett. counsel for Adolph
SegaL There are fourteen counts in the
/ indictments
The indictments charge the corporation,
I the American Sugar company and the aC-
/ cUsed OF conspiracy i'm restraint Of trade
[ In violation Of che Sherman antitrust
law. The defendants viii answer to the
indictments i'm court next Tuesday.
History Of the Case.
The events leading up to today's indict-
ments may be traced back to 1885. when
AdOiph Segal of Philadelphia sold TO the
American Sugar Refining company a re-
finery which he had built and for a
time operated at Camden n L Some
/ years later SeEa1 took over the Old Penn
sylvania Sugar Refining company Of Phil
adelDhia, which had suspended business
! il 1898. BY 1893 Segal had a new plant
nearly con pleted and was ready to COM
I pete i'm sugar refining Meantime how
/ ever, ne had engaged extensively iu other
/ real estate promotions and became pressed
/ for funds. Just at this time Gustave
/ kissel, a Wall street broker. turned up
with an offer to obtain for SeEal a loan
/ Of $l.l30D. which was accepted. 1t aft
I erward developed that the loan came
I from the treasury Of the American Sugar
/ Refining company, but Segal claims that
[ at the time he did not know this.
Contract Secured.
/ operations Segal entered into bond with
] Kissal by which the borrower turned over,
along with other security $500 Of che
I 1ly39 shares 81 the t'oF ilss'iVania Refining
I company aud agreed that the sugar se-
+ c1r4tles sh9litq 81 put m voting trust
] scented control of Segars company. THE
/ new controlling interest i'm tile Penusyl-
Vanla Sugar Refining company forthwith
/ elected new board of directors and this
/ board soon dfterWard adopted a reE0iu-
I ton that the Segal refinery should not
I De operated at that time S3Eai also bor-
/ rOWed heavily from the Real Estate Trust
| company Of Philadelphia. with which DE
/ deposited the securities Of the sO-Called
/ sugar trust loan. President Nipple Of the
/ Real Estate Trust company, had been
I made custodian Of these securities. The
I trust company became involved hOpelessly
/ and suspended President Nipple commit
/ ted suicide
No Relief at Washington.
After George II. Earle had been made
! receiver for the Real Estate Trust com
pany on Aug. Is, 1905 he claimed the diff
l ficulties Of the trust company were due 10
I the pressure brought by the American
/ Sugar Refining company upon Segal for
I the discharge OF his obligations. while at
/ the same time SegaL not being permitted
I TO operate his refinery, was helpless 10
pay. Mr.. Earle appealed to the depart
| ment Of justice, alleging among other
/ things that the minority interests assoc
rf1 cd fr ret rIar-r
were being Gafrauded and that the
trust I'm keeping the refineryClOsed. was
acting in restraint Of trade and tn violation
/ Of the Sherman antitrust law Represeu-
| tatiOns made by Earle to Justice Moody,
then attorney general, and subsequently,
I to Attorney General Bouaparte continued,
/ but without the relief sought IL is un-
| derstOod the attitude or the department
/ Of justice was that so far as representa-
tons had been made the facts did not
differ in theory from the Knight case. in
which the federal courts had held that the
acquisition Of four competing reiineries
/ by the American Sugar Refining company
Pdid not constitute "a violation Of the Sher-
man antitrust law.
Suit Finally Brought.
/ Suit was then brought in the United
States district court at New York. the
I Pennsylvania Sugar company seeking
I damages Of 100000 from the American
Sugar Refining cOmpany- After trial OF
two weeks "a compromise was effected
on June s. The exact terms Of the set
Element have not been made public. but
I II is understood the sugar trust cancelled
/ the Kissel note of N.1Z5.000 paid Segsl
I 81 100000 in cash FIN lieu of losses which
I he claimed he had sustained through the
/ idIeness of his refinery and returned to
him the 2Ga00 shares of the Pennsylvania
/ company. which had been deposited as
/ security for the loan Of 1903.
/ It was this victory over the American
Continued on Page 2.