The enterprise. [volume] (Harlem, Mont.) 1899-1926, 1909-07-07
CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE IS FEDERAL CHARGE
AGAINST THEM.
CRUSHED THEIR COMPETITORS
Adslph segaI's Fight Against Ameri.
can Refining Company is Recalled.
Officers and Corporations are
Indicted Separately.

Sugar Refining company, six of it's d.
rectors and two other individuals,
were indicted by federal grand jury
today on a charge of conspiracy in
restraint of trade and violation of the
Sherman antitrust law.
The individuals indicted are Wash
ington B. Thomas, president of the
American Sugar Refining company;
Arthur Bonner and Charles H. Senff
and John e. Parsons, of New York;
John Mayer, of Morristown, N. j., and
George H. Frazier, of Philadelphia,
all of whom are directors of the COM
pany
Indictments also were found against
Gustave E. Kissel and Thomas B.
Harnett, counsel for Adolph Segal,
There were fourteen counts in the
indictment.
The defendants will answer to the
indictments in court next Tuesday.
Dates Back Thirteen Years.
The thread of events leading up to
today's indictments may be traced
back to 1896, when Adolph Segal of
Philadelphia, sold to the American
Sugar Refining company a sugar re-
finery, which he had built and for
time operated at Camden, N. J. Some
years later Segal took over the old
Pennsylvania Sugar Refining COM
pany of Philadelphia, which had sus-
pended Business in 1898. BY 1903
Segal had a new plant nearly COM
pleted and was ready to compete in
sugar refining. Meantime, however,
he had engaged extensively in other
real estate promotions and became
pressed for funds.
Just at this time Gustave Kisse1, a
Wall Street broker, turned up with an
offer to secure for Segal a loan of
81 ,250, 900, which was accepted 1t
afterward developed that loans came
from the treasury of the American
Sugar Refining company, but Segal
claims that at that time he did not
know this.
To secure the loan for his real es-
tate operations, Segal entered into a
bond with Kissel, by which the bor-
rover turned over, along with other
securities, $4,000 of the $4,000 shares
of the Pennsylvania Refining company
and agreed that the sugar securities
should be put in a voting trust, which
gave Kissel, or whoever he represent
ed, control of Segal's sugar company.
The new controlling interests in the
Pennsylvania Sugar Refining company
forthwith elected a new board of di-
rectors. and this board soon afterward
passed a resolution that the Segal
factory should not be operated at that
time.
American Company Accused.
After George H. Earle had been
made receiver for the Real Estate
Trust company on Aug. %, 1906, he
claimed that the difficulties of the
trust company were due to the pres.
sure brought by the American Sugar
Refining company on Segal for the
discharge of his obligations, while at
the same time Segal, not being per-
mitted to operate his refinery, was
helpless to pay.
Mr.. Earle appealed to the depart
ment of justice, alleging among other
IAAA60 CA1C LAO 4ulAOl4Iy lACClOoC6 d0.
ISOLATED with Segal in his sugar re-
finery, were being defrauded and that
the trust" in keeping the refinery
closed, was acting in restraint of
trade and in violation of the Sherman
antitrust law.
Representations made by Earle to
Justice Moody, then attorney general,
ND 70
Bonaparte, continued, but without the
relief sought. 1t is understood that
the attitude of the department of JUS
tice was that, so far as representa-
lions 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 COM
peting refineries by the American SUI
gar Refining company did not consti-
tute violation of the Sherman anti
trust law. Suit was then brought in
the United States district court at
New York, the Pennsylvania Sugar
Refining company seeking damages Of
$3O,000,O0O from the American Sugar
Refining company.
Compromise Is Effected.
After trial of two weeks, a COM
promise was effected on June 8. The
exact terms of the settlement have
not been made public, but it is under
stood that the sugar trust" Cancelled
the Kissel note of $1,125,OOO paid Sc
gal 100000 in cash in lieu of losses
which he claimed he had sustained
through the idleness of his refinery,
and returned to him the $4,000 shares
of the Pennsylvania company which
had been deposited as security for
the loan of 1908. 1t was this victory
over the American Sugar Refining
company which seemed to open the
way for federal suit against that
corporation along the lines drawn by
Mr.. Earle three years ago.
Sugar Prices Cut.
New York, July ALI grades of
refined sugar were reduced 10 cents
q hundred pounds today.