The searchlight. [volume] (Culbertson, Mont.) 1902-current, 1909-07-09
CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT or
TRADE is-FEDERAL CHARGE
AGAINST THEM.
HOktD off AlCoMPtT|IOR
Adolph Sesal's Fight Against Amsri
can Refining Company 10 Recalled
Officers and Corporations
Indicted Separately.

new YORK, July Z.-Ine AmeTlcSu
Sugar Refining company. six Of It's d.
rectors and two other individuals.
were indicted by . federal grand Jury
today on . charge Of conspiracy in
restraint OF trade ana violation OF the
Sherman antitrust law.
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 1895, when Adolph Segal. of
Philadelphia. sold to the American
Sugar Refining company a sugar re.
finery, 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 1898. BY 1908
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 Kissel,
Wall Street broker, turned up with an
offer to secure for Segal a loan Of
$1.250,000. which was accepted.
The new controlling interests in the
Pennsylvania Sugar Refining company
forthwith elected a new board of di.
rectors. and this board soon afterward
passed 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
things that the minority interests as.
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,
and subsequently to Attorney General
Bonaparte, continued, but without the
relief sought. II Is understood that
the attitude Of the department of jus.
tice was that. SO far as representa-.
tions 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 Su-
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
$30.000.0O0 from the American Sugar
Refining company.
Compromise 10 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 1t is under.
stood that the sugar trust" Cancelled
the Rssel note Of $l.125. 900 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 1903. 1t was this victory
over the American Sugar Refining
company which seemed to open the
way for a federal suit against that
corporation along the lines drawn by
MIR. Earle three years ago.
ma AneMalIpc Anr nrIlr~