The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-03-13
SUGAR FIGHTS SURPWNA.
saSs u % vague and suDssaasas aAa was
NSa Lawfully sesvea.

The return u the American SUGAR
refining Company 80 the order 10 show
Gauss why Il should nOs baehsld in con-
tempt 1T oourt Tor the refusal % its sscrs-
t'4fy. Charles u. Hsiks. 10 produce hooks
"nd pap~ required 10y a subp9na ducsa
t-cum issusi by Cnited states Attorney
N'ss was filed yesterday in tho United
states Circuit Court. The papers are
wanted in an Investigation which Mr.
Wise IL Conducting into tho status Of the
trust under the sherman antitrust law.
The s0lp0na WAS issued On February ~
aud Mr.. Heiks took what books and papSra
h- was able 90 get together in the short
time allowed him by the aubp1nA and on
February - he went bsfors the Federal
Grand Jury with them. He asked Co he
sworn. but Mr.. Wise refused 20 permit
this un tn. ground that il was the sugar
company aud not Mr. Hsike personally
that had been subpsnAed. Mr.. Hoiks
refused TO relinquish the papsrs until he
had been sworn.
In the return iusa hlsd the sugar com
pany states that tho subpCsna 10 Informal.
defective and irregular" and that 10 IL
vague aud Unreasonable In its scopS
are required than could be obtained In
the ten days allowed and, moreover. the
subpssna was served At la Wall street
and not at Washington and Easex strpees.
Jersey City. which In the legal doEnicile
81 The c"fporasscg- h != further cc-i.
under the order OF the Court. but by the
clerk. and that there 10 no statute permit
ting the service 81 subpoena Addreased
to corporate entity. II iE -S.sSed that the
documents called for refer 10 transactions
beyond the statute of limitations and that
~ a "A anH h. EfHNh
TO the Constitution 60 require The sugar
company 20 produce papers which may
tend to iDcFiminate.
The atssmpt,- says the answer. to
compel him (Heiksl 20 eurrender the
Documents and papers in question. not ~
witness but an an individual. wac an
attempt Go appropriate unlawfully the
books and documents " this respondent.
and as the attempt was not Of the Grand
Jury but was that of the United States
Attorney the said attempt 90 take
from the said Charles n. Heiks the docu-
ments. books and papers in question
was an attempt TO make an unreasonable
search and setzure and a. such was an
attempt 60 Violate the Fourth Amend-
ment 70 the Constitution q the United
States
fhe attention Of the Court ID also called
20 the fact that the subpoena asks for papers
which rcfer TO the aoqIiisition Of the Frank
lin sugar Refining Company. the Spreckels
sugar. S.,1I Rsfinins COMPANY; the z; G Knight
HoOse all Philadelphia companies The
acquisition of these companies. says
the return. was held TO be legal by the
United States supreme Court In October.
1894
A. an illustration Of the difio,iitiss
which the sugar company has had 20
contend With In attempting 60 comply
with the subpsna. tho return saye that
the corporations capital IL so0.O0O. 900
aud that 10 busin-~s transactions are
and have bssn - extensive during la
corporate existence that in the last
fOuTteen ye1rs II has paid 60 the Govern
ment t51e OOO. 90 in duties on iTnpoTta-
tions. These transactions during the last
tw~nty years have been with more than
fifty companies.
The Court ~ asked 70 diamiss the order
90 show cause and 20 vacate the Subpoena.