The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-11-28
BLOW HAS FALLEN.

Continued from Page One.)
such shares and that they be enjoined
from paying dividends to the holders.
That the shares of capital stock
in the National Sugar Refining COM
pany, Utah-Idaho Sugar company,
Great Western Sugar company and
Continental Sugar company formerly
held by the late H. o. HaVemeyer,
were unlawfully acquired by him and
are now being unlawfully used by the
executors and trustees under his will,
who are made defendants in the suit
The government asks that the execu-
tors and trustees be enjoined from
further using the powers incident to
the shares so held by them as to bring
about cooperation between the is
suing companies and the other defen-
dant corporations.
THAT the defendants be enjoined
from continuing to carry out the pur-
poses of the unlawful combination and
conspiracy and be required to with
draw from all connections Herewith.
Relief Is Asked.
THAT the court grant such general
relief as may be proper by way of in
junction, receivership or otherwise"
The criminal sugar combine, the pc
tition sets forth, was the sugar re-
f1neries company which was formed in
August, 1887, under the lead of H. o.
Haven eyer and embraced companies
which together carried on 90 per cent
| of the interstate and foreign sugar
| trade of the country. Within two
years after the formation of the origin
al company it is charged, the COM
| bination closed twelve refinerieS in
| 1889 1t obtained the independent Cali
| fornia company leaving outside the
combination only the four Philadelphia
concerns. The state of New York at
| 20 l., 70
dissolve the North Sugar Refining
company which was one of the parties
to the agreement and the courts held
! the combination to be illegal.
Thereupon the present American
! Sugar Refining company was formed in
January, 1891, and continued the
| business of the combine.
From 1892 to 1900, it is said indie
pendent ref1neries started up and 9TH
! erS tried to. One company built a
plant in Baltimore but before it could
| operate the American company bought
! it's capital stock and never allowed it
| to operate its refinery. The same
! thing happened to the United States
! built plant at Camden, N. J. The
| suppression of the Pennsylvania Sugar
! Refining company, which was brought
| out in a suit against the American
| company some years ago, is also re-
ferred to. The California and Hawaii
Sugar company controlled by Hawaiian
| planters, was put out of business, it is
| alleged, by means of an agreement
whereby the combine was to pay $780,
| 900 a year for three years provided it
retired from the field.
Unfair Advantages.
The government charges that the
American has obtained unfair ad-
vantages over competitors by obtaining
money on imports by customs frauds
as was brought out in the govern
n0pnt'S rPPRnf shifts. nv rRnaiUiT1c re
bates from railroads and by working
in harmony with wholesale grocers' as
sociations throughout the country and
keeping up the price of sugar.
A considerable portion of the petit
tons is devoted to the acquisition by the
combine of the beet sugar plants wher
that industry began to grow formid-
able. In 1901 all the companies ex-
cept the Spreckels company which was
a beet sugar concern were Independent
| The American, it is charged, began it,
campaign by sending into the middle
west large quantities of sugar on which
it had obtained rebates and free stor-
age during the summer. In the fall
which is the time the beet sugar com.
panies began to sell their products
the American is said to have put it:
prices to less than cost, injuring the
business of the beet sugar companies
In 1902, having weakened and dis
| couraged these companies, the petition
recltes, the American company begar
to buy them in, in some cases eXacting
a tribute for all sugar sold by such
companies. The American Beet Sugar
company, it is charged. was forced tt
pay 4 cent per pound on all sugar
1t sold.
At present according to the petition
the American company and it's subsidi-
| aries control 70 per cent of the output
[ of refined sugar in the country which
is said to be enough to permit it abso
lutely to control prices after meeting {
certain amount of competition.
The Defendants Refining.
The defendants are the American Su
gar Refining company, it's directors ant
officers, and all cane and beet sugal
companies in which it holds stock o.
over which it has control by the hold
ing of stock in them by companie!
which in turn are controlled by tn,
American. The companies made de
PENDANT, in addition to the American
Sugar Refining company are the Amer
lean Sugar Refining company of New
York, the Franklin Sugar Refining com
pany of Philadelphia, Spreckels Sugal
Refining company of Philadelphia
Western Sugar Refining company O
San Francisco California Sugar Re
finery of San Francisco, National Su
gar Refinery company of New Jersey
National Sugar Refining company o
, New York New York Sugar Refining
COMPANY. Mollenhauer Sugar Refining