The Charles Mix new era. (Wagner, Charles Mix County, S.D.) 1???-1911, 1910-12-09
SUGAR co.
GOVERNMENT PETITION De
MANDs DISSOLUTION OF AMER
icAN REFINING COMPANY.
FILE LONG EXPECTED SUIT
Attacks Methods Of n. o. Haveneyer,
Deceased. - Prosecutor Charges
He Got ~$1c,ooo,ooo
as Gift.

Washington, D. C.-Attacking the
American Sugar Refining company, ia
miliarly known as the sugar trust, as
a lawless combination, the federal
government filed its long expected
suit for the dissolution OF the corpo-
ration. The petition was filed BY
Henry A. Wise, district attorney, in
the United States circuit cou for the
Southern district of New York.
One of the allegations is that the
late III. O. Havemeyer, long head OF
the sugar combine, received 100000
900 common stock OF the National!
Sugar Refining company OF New Jer-
sey as a gift at the time the cor
poration was formed to lake into the
combine four independent concerns,
the National Sugar Refining company,
run by B. II. Howells, Son & Co.; The
New York Sugar Refining company
of Long Island City, N. Y, operated
by Claus Doshern; the M~ollenhauer
Sugar Refining company of Brooklyn
and the w. ]. McCahan Sugar Rein
ing company of Philadelphia. These
companies up to 1900 were independ-
ent and. it is said, the American com
pany was determined TO acquire them.
Under a plan ~lnaugurated By Mr..
Hayemeyer. John E. Parsons and Jas.
H. Post, the National company was
formed and took over the four plants,
Mr.. Post obtaining options on them.
When the new stock was delivered,
the petition sets forth, Post delivered
100, 900 shares of common stock, the
entire issue, with a par value of $1O.-
00C, 900, to Mr.. Havemeyer.
The government also alleges that
when the American company took
over the four Philadelphia companies,
the Franklin Sugar Refining company.
the Spreckles Sugar Refining company.
the Delaware Sugar House and the z.
C.. knight company, Mr.. Havemeyer
and his brother, Theodore Havemeyer,
bought As per cent of the stock of the
Spreckles company and then sold 1t at
a large profit to the American com.
pany, of which both were directors.
In general the petition charges that
Ju6 u~CltQudnto loI SoDlC LlLAC pdoV
had been and now are engaged in an
unlawful combination and conspiracy
to restrain the trade and commerce
among and between the several state:
and territories of the United State.
and with foreign nations, in raw sugar
sugar beets, refined sugar, molasses
syrups and other by-products of ray
,-rn 49, I4~% 80
opolize same. Such unlawful com
bination and conspiracy is the result
and outgrowth of a series of wrong
full acts extending over a period @
many years and participated in b
defendants, respectively, in the mar
ner and to the extent hereinafter NOR
fully set forth. In participating in tn
various acts, agreements and combin;
tons hereinafter described all of tn
defendants have been actuated b
wrongful intent to restrain said int
state and foreign trade and commerC
in raw and refined sugar and relate
! articles, and to monopolize parts Their
Of"
The government charges that til
american has ODJdiuSQ unfair dQVd
tage over competitors by obtainir
money on imports by customs fraud
by receiving rebate from railroads ar
e by working in harmony with wholssa
Q grocers' associations throughout IL
country and keeping up the price
sugar.
A considerable portion of the pc
ton is devoted to the acquisition
4 the combine of the beet sugar plant
when that industry began to gre
formidable. In 1901 all these col
paEies, except the Spreckles compar
n which was a beet sugar concern. we
~ independent.
il At present. according to the pc
= ton, the American company and
- subsidiaries contro. 70 per cent of t
4 total output of refined sugar In t
:. country, which is said to be enough
q permit it absolutely to control pricy
after meeting a certain amount of CO
petition.