Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1909-07-02
REGGIE AND ME.S,SINA REEL
AS EARTHQUAKE SKATERS
WALLS LEFT ON LATE RUINS
BIG SUGAR TRUST
CALLED TO ANSWER
Six Directors and Two Other In
dividuals Were Indicted In New
York by Federal Grand Jury
Thursday.
CIV Annotated Prsss.l

NEW YORK, July 1.-The American
Sugar Refining company, six of its d.
rectors and two other individuals were
indicted by a federal grand jury today
on charge of conspiracy in restraint of
trade.
The individuals indicted are Washing
ton b. Thomas. president of the Amer
lean Sugar Refining company; Arthur
Bonner. Charles II. SEMI and John E.
Parsons. of New York; John Mayer, of
Morristown. n. J.. and George H. Fra
zier, of Philadelphia, all of whom are
directors OF the company.
Indictments also were found against
Gustave Kissel and Thomas B. Harnett,
counsel for AdOlph Segal. There were
Il counts in the indictment.
The indictments charge the corporation,
the American Sugar Refining company
and the persons accused of conspiracy in
restraint OF trade in violation of the Sher-
man antitrust law. The defendants VIII
answer to the indictments in court next
Tuesday.
HISTORY OF THE CHARGES.
The thread of events leading up to to-
days indictments may be traced back to
1886. when Adolph Segal. OF Philadelphia.
sold to the American Sugar Refining COM
pany a suger refinery which he had built
and for a time operated at Camden, n. ].
Some years later Segal took over the
old Pennsylvania Sugar Refining COM
pany. OF Philadelphia, which had sus-
pended business in 1895 By 1903 Segal
, had started a new plant to compete in
sugar refining. Meantime he had engaged
extensively in other real estate promo
lions and became pressed for funds.
Veil
street broker. turned up with an offer to
secure for Segal loan of $l.125,COO,
which was accepted. II afterward de-
velored that the loan came from the
treasury OF the American Sugar Refining
company. but Segal claims he did not
know this then.
To secure the loan for his real estate
operations. Segal entered into a bond
with Kissel by which the borrower turned
over. along with other securities. 5000
OF the $1,000 shares of the Pennsylvania
Refining company and agreed that the
sugar securities should be put in voting
trust, which gave Kissel or whoever he
represented, control Of SegaTs sugar COM
pany. The new controlling interest in the
, Pennsylvania Sugar Refining company
forthwith elected a new board of direc-
/: tors and this board soon afterwards pass
ed a resolution that the Segal refinery
should not be operated.
BORROWED ELSEWHERE.
-Segal also borrowed heavily from the
Real Estate Trust company, of Phila-
delphia. with whom he deposited the Sc
curity for the So-called sugar trust loan.
President Nipple, Of the Real Estate
! Trust company. had been made custodian
Of these securities. The trust company
became involved hopelessly, and suspend
ed President Nipple committed suicide.
L
receiver for the Real Estate Trust COM
pany on August is, 1906, he claimed
I that the difficulties of the trust COM
pany were due to the pressure brought
! by the American Sugar Refining COM
pany upon Segal for the discharge of
his obligations. while at the same time
Segal, not being permitted to operate
| his refinery, could not pay. Mr.. Earle
! appealed to the department. Of Justice.
| alleging, among other things, that the
/ minority interests associated with Segal
in his sugar refinery were being de-
/ frauded and that the trust in keep
/ ing the refinery closed, was acting in
restraint Of trade and in violation Of
the Sherman antitrust law. Repre-
: sensations made by Ear.e 10 Justice
Moody, then attorney general. and sub
| sequently to Attorney General Bona
| parte, continued, but without the RELIEF
sought.
/, II is understood that the attitude Of
! the department of justice was that so
] fer as representations had been made
| tho facts did not differ in theory from
( tho Knight case. in which the federal
| ccu' is had held that the acquisition OF
fo,;r competing refineries by :he Ameri-
| can Sugar Refining company did not
| constitute a violation Of the Sherman
/ anti-trust law.
| SUIT WAS THEN BROUGHT.
Suit was then brought in the United
| States district court at New York. the
| Pennsylvania Sugar Refining company
| seeking damages Of $50, 600, 900 FROM the
| American Sugar Refining company.
/ After a trial Of two weeks a COM
! premise was effected on June 8. Tao
| exact terms Of settlement have not been
! made public. but il is understood that
{ the sugar trust cancelled the KIsscl
rute of S1.125,OOO. paid Segal S2,O0o. 600
! IN cash IN lieu Of losses which h. claim
. CT ne had sustained throI-n the idle
{ nSss Of his refinery and returned q
q h..n the twenty-six THOUSAND shares. Of
/ the Pennsylvania company which had
/ br,n deposited as security for the loan
( Il L! ..
/ + was this victory over tce Aneri-
( can Sugar Refining company which
I seemed 10 open the way for Il federal
/ suit against the corporat:''I along the
( tines drawn by Mr.. Earle three years
! ego.