Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1909-07-01
AM. SUGARREF|N|NG
COMPANY INDICTED
1t and Six of Its Directors lndict-
ed for Entering Into conspir-
acy in Restraint Of Trade.
CASE HAS STRANGE HISTORY.
When Submitted to Mr.. Bonapartc by
Receiver Saclc lie Did Not Act
Wicllcrsllan Has Nothing to Say.

New York, July 1.rie American
Sugar Refining company, six OF its di-
ercctors and two other individuals were
indicted by u federal grand jury today
on q charge of conspiracy i'll restraint
of trade.
The officials indicted are Washington
=. Thomas, president of the American
Sugar Refining company; Arthur Do
ier and Charles II. Sneff and John Il,
Parsons of New York; John Mayor of
Morristown,s N. j.. and George Fl. Fra
zier OF Philadelphia. all Of whom are
directors Of the company. Indictments
also We're found against Giistave His-
sci and Thomas b. Harnett, counsel for
Adoiph sesal. There areza4 counts in
the indictment.
The indictments charge the corpora
ton the American ssu gar 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 1.-The events Lead
ing. up to today's indictments may. be5
traced back To 1896 when Adolph segal3
of Philadelphia sold 10 the American
Sugar Refining company n refinery
which lie had built and for a time oper-
Eated at Camden. n. j. Some years
later Sesal took over the old Pennsyi-
6yania Sugar Refining company of Phil
sadelphia, which had suspended business
in 1898. BY 1903 $Segal had a new plant
nearly completed and was ready to
&eompete in sugar refining. Meantime,
however, lie had engaged extensively
in ether real estate promotions and be-
came pressed for funds. Just at this
time Gustave kissel, a WILL street
broker. turned up With an offer to OH
tain for Segal loan Of s1,125,ooo. which
was accepted, 1T afterwards developed
I that the loan came from the treasury
of the American Sugar Refining com =
pa1iS, but Segal claims that at the
time he did not know this. 70 secure
the loan for his real estate operations.
Segal entered into Il bond with KisseI
by which the borrower turned uyer.
along with other security, $4,000 of tho
40. 0Qn shares of the PENNSYLVANIA Rehn-s
ing company and agreed that the sugar
securities should be put IN a voting
trust which gave. iSissel or whoever he
represented control Of Segai's company.
The new controlling interest In the
5. Pennsylvania Sugar Refining 3coinpany
forthwith elected Il new board of dis
rectors and this board soon afterward
adopted a resolution that the Segal res
finery should not be operated at that
time. Segal also borrowed heavily
from tile Real Estate Trust company
of Philadelphia. with which he deposit
cd the securities OF the so-caled sugar
trust loan, President Nipple, of the
Real Estate Trust company, had been
made custodian of these securities. The f
trust company became involved hope
lessy and suspended. President Nipple
committed suicide. 555 II
EARLE'S CLAIMS.
After George n. Earle had been
made receiver forsthe Real Estate Trust
company on Aug. IS, 1905, he claimed
the difficulties of the trust company
We're due to tho pressure brought by
the American Sugar Refining company
upon Segal for the discharge OF his OBJ
legations while at the same time Segal
not being permitted to operate his re-
finery, was helpless to pay Mr.. Earle
appealed to the department of justice,
alleging among other things that the
slS,soSitlttd WI III SotREil.s
in his sugar refinery We're 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. Represen-
tations made by Earle to Justice
Moody. then attorney general and sub
seaucntly to Atty. Gen. Bonaparte con-
tinued. but without the relief sought.
1t IS understood the attitude of the de-
loartment ofjustice was that so far as
Representations had been made the fact
did not diffcrin 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
a violation of the Sherman anti-trust5
law, Suit was then brought in the
Unitea States district court at New
York the Pennsylvania Sugar company
seeking damages of sS0.000, 600 from the
American sugar Refining company.
After a trial of two weeks Il compromise
vas effected on June S. The exact terms
of the settlement have not been made
public. but 1t is understood tho sugar:
trust cancelled the kssel note of
$1.l25,000 paid Sesal s2,0000o0 In cash
In lieu Of losses Which he claimed ne
had sustained through the tdleness
OF his refinery and returned to him the
&c coo shares of the PENNSYLVANIA COM
PAM which had been deposited as Sc
curity for the loan of 1903.
II was this victory over the Afneri-
can Sugar Refining company which
seemed 20 open the way fer 9 federal :,
suit against that corporation along the
lines drawn By Mr.. Earle three years
WIcKERsHAM'S OPINION
Washington July with respect to
the indictment found III the New York /,
sugar cases. .Stt5'-GeH Wickersiani
said today that the indictment spoke
for itself and he had nothing to ado.
In his opinion the administration Of
Justice should be quiet, though ef-@
fective and inSpersonal and 1t was his
Intention that this should be so. in the
sugar cases as in other cases under
his control,