Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1909-07-01
AM. SUGAR REFINING
COMPANY INDICTED
II and Six of lis Directors Indict-
ed for Entering Into conspir-
acy in Restraint OF Trade.
CASE HAS STRANGE HISTORY.
When Submitted to Mr.. Bonapartc BY
Receiver SncIc lie Did Not Act
Wickcrshapi Has Nothing To Say.

| New York July Title American
| sugar Refining company, six of its di-
feetors and two8ether individuals We're
indicted BY q federal grand jury today
on q charge OF conspiracy iii restraint
of trade
The officials indicted are Washington
=, Thomas. president OF the American
| Sugar Refining company; Arthur Dos
jer and Charles Fl. sneff and John H.
| PARSONS of New York; John Mayer of
! Morristown. N. j., and George III. Fra
zier Of Philadelphia, all OF whom are
( directors OF the company. Indictments
also We're found against Gustave Kis-
| sci and Thomas B. Harnett, counsel for
Adoiph segal. There are IA counts In
| the Indictment
The indictments charge the corpora-
ton the American Sugar company and
the accused of conspiracy in restraint
of trade in violation of the Sherman
antitrust law. The defendants VIII
answer to the indictments in SQUIRT
next Tuesday.
HISTORY OF CASE.
New York. July ]. Tho events lead
Ing up to today;s indictments may be
traced back to 1896, when Adolph SegaI
Of Philadelphia sold to the American
Sugar Refining company Il refinery
which he had built and for a time oper-
ated al Camden, n, j Some years
later Segai took over the old Pennsyi-
wanna Sugar Refining conlpany5of Phil
adelphia. which had suspended business
in 1888. BY 1909 Segal had a new plant
nearly completed and was ready to
compete in sugar; refining. Meantime,
however. he had engaged extensively
mother real estate promotions and be- I
came pressed for funds. Just at4this y
time t;ustaNt9 Kissel a Wall street
broker. turned up with an offer to OBJ n
tainfor segal a8loanSo of 81, $4,000, which
was accepted 1t afterwards developed
that the loan came from the treasury
OF the American Sugar Refining conf
pany. but Segal claims that at thsG
time he did not know this. 10 secure
the loan for his renlestate operations.
segal entered iiito 4 bnnd with Kissel
by which the borrower turned over
along with otherG security, 20 600 of tho
10000 shares of the PennsylYan REIN
ING COMPANY and agreed that the sugar.
securities should be put In a voting
WHICH. give 5lSiSSeIh or sIVHOeVerF
represented control of Segal's company II
The new controlling interest in the
Pennsylvania; Sugar Refining company
forthwith elected q new board of ti.
rectors and this board soon aftcrwaftl
adopted "a resolution that the Segal rc-
fincry should not be operated at that
time. Segal also borrowed heavily
from the Real Estate Trust company
of Philadelphia. with which he deposit
ed the securities of the so-called sugar
trust loan President Ripple, or the
Real Estate Tr,IstScompany, had been
made custodian of these securities The
trust company became involved hope
lessly and suspended. President Ripple
committed suicide.
11ARLE's CLAIMS.
After George H Earle had been
made receiver for the Real Estate Trust
company on Aug. rs. 1906, he claimed
the difficulties of the trust company
We're due to the pressure brought BY
the American An Sugar Refining company
upon sSegat for the discharge OF his OBJ
legations while at the same time Segal,
not being permitted to operate his re-
Iinery, was helpless to pay. Mr.. Earle
to the department of Justice
alleging among other things that tho b
minority interests associated With Ssegal
in his sugar refinery were being de-
frauded and that the .trust.,' in keep
ing the refinery closed, was acting iii
restraint of trade and in violation OF Z
the Sherman antitrust law. Represent
tations made by Earle to Justice
Moody. then attorney general and sub
sequcntly to Atty. Gen Bonaparte con-
tinued, but without the relief sought.
1t is understood the attitude oftthe de-
l,artment Of Justice was that so far as
representations had been made the fact
did not differzin 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 constitute
q violation OF the Sherman antitrust
law Suit was then brought in the
United States district court at New
York. the Pennsylvania Sugar company
seeking damages of SS0,q00,000 from the
American Sugar Refining company.
After a trial of two weeks a compromise
was effected on June 5. The exact terms
of tie settlement have not been made
public, but 1t is understood the sugar
trust cancelled the ISfssel note OF
s1,125.o0o paid Segal s2.00o00o In cash
mad sustained through the dieness
of his refinery and returned to him the
26.GG0 shares OF the Pennsylvania COM
sIany which had been deposited as Sc
cprity for the loan of 1905.
II was this victory over the Ameri-
can Sugar Refining company which
seemed Ia open the way for q federal
suit against that corporation along the
lines drawn by Mr. Earle three years
ago.
WyckERsIiAArs OPINION,
Washington July With respect to
the indictment found In the New York i
sugar cases At5y@-Geif Wickersham
said to!ny that the Indictment spoke
for itself and he had nothing 10 add,
Iii his opinion the administration Of
Justice should he quiet. though ef-
fecttve and imperSoual andsi was his
that his should he so In the
sugar cases as liz other cases under
his control.
IN ALLEGED
TRAIN ROBBER CASES