The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1909-11-19
Former "Trust Buster" of
Teddy Talks.
Magazine Discloses the
Whole Matter.
Somebody I'm the Department of JUS
tice I'm Washington Failed TO Intro
ducc the Testimony he Should at
the Hearing and the Government
LOST Out in the Suit.
nv Ifniied press Mire

|
! New York, Nov. lS.-That someone
in the department of justice at Wash
ington failed to introduce necessary
proof easily obtainable in the trial OF
the Knight case whereby the sugar
trust was allowed to win and the
Sherman antitrust law was practic-
| ally Knocked out in its first test suit.
H. charged by Hampton's magazine.
! 1t alleges that this proof was the
kind which any good lawyer could
easily have reduced and quotes an
unnamed former trust buster of
| the Roosevelt administration when
asked why the proof was not present
ed as follows: oui,,..<t.
There has always been n great
deal of mystery about that case in
my mind. that's ALL" H''i
The article declares that II. O..
Eavemeyer personally presented the
Philadelphia banks lending Claud
A. Spreckles of the federal sugar
company, one million dollars on un-
questionable securities: that when he
came to New York for the money,
Havemeyer tried to block the loan
and when he secured it, John Il &.
Searles, secretary and treasurer OF
the trust, proposed that the Federal
company combine with the Have
meyer company, giving Havemeyer
and Searles personally n half inter-
est.
This young Spreckles refused. but
later his father sold out to the Have
meyers and'th present agreement for
the division OF trade was reached.
Following the passing of the Sher-
man antitrust law" the article
seys, 'it was plain that 1t provided
such heavy penalties for violations
that n reckless man was needed for
the assault on il. Havemeyer was that
man. He organized his sugar trust in
New Jersey in open contempt of the
law and he fiaunted his contempt in
the face OF the-eourts, congress, the
national administration and public
opinion. Then came the first test
case, the Knight case. The defend
ants owned the Philadelphia refin-
cries which had been sold to the
trust. The government sought to en-
join the transfers. Instead the trust
won, the monopoly was sustained and
the law for the time being destroyed.
The effect of that victory was to con-
vince the country that the Sherman
law was worthless. Had the supreme
court sided against the sugar trust
instead of for IT., most of the trusts
now in existence would never have
been born.
"Chief Justice Fuller wrote the ma
iority opinion which upheld the trust.
He ruled: The result of the tran
saction was the creation of a monop-
oily In the manufacture of a neces-
sity OF life which cannot be sup
pressed under the provisions of the
act of July 2, 1890. in the mode at
tempted in this suit and the acqui-
sition Of the Philadelphia refinerles by
the New Jersey corporation and the
business OF refining in Pennsylvania
bear no direct relation to commerce
between the states or with foreign
ma tions." ~ HIH
THAT Is how the sugar 'iust won
its fight for itself and the rest of the
ilk. The evidence showing II was In
restraint of interstate commerce was
not presented to the court, although
Justice Harlan saw what IL meant
and tried TO make a decision broad
enough to afford a remedy. In his
dissention OF opinion he declared 9th.
er trusts would be formed and named
the very trusts, a few of them al
letst, that have since been formed and
that have oppressed the people as he
icres',w. He knew that II the ma
joriIy decision stood there would be
nothing to stop them.
''The great food trusts We're cigan-
ized, the great railway comblna.
tions with their billions of wealth in
centralized control and their vast
power came, and all made possible
because somebody in the department
of justice in Washington failed to in
troduce the necessary proof in the
knight case and the sugar trust was
allowed to win. the Sherman law was
knocked out"