The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-11-28
Chicago Grain Market.

company of Brooklyn, w. ]. McCahen
Sugar Refining company OF PhlIadel-
phia, Cuban American Sugar company
of New York, Colonial Sugar company
of New York, Alameda Sugar company
of San Francisco, Union Sugar com
pany of San Francisco, Spreckels Sugar
company of San Francisco, Utah, Idaho
Sugar company of Salt Lake City. Am
algamated Sugar company of Ogden,
Utah, Lewiston Sugar company of Lew
iston, Idaho, Great Western Sugar COM
pany of Jersey City, N. J., Sterling Su-
gar company Of Denver, Morgan County
Construction company of Denver Bill
ings' Sugar company of Billings, Mon
tana, SCOTS Bluff Sugar company of
Denver, Michigan Sugar company or
Saginaw Michigan, Iowa Sugar COM
pany of Waverly, Iowa, Carver County
Sugar company Of Chaskas Mimi, Con-
tinental Sugar company of Cleveland
and the Menominee River Sugar COM
pany of Menominee-
In addition to these corporations a
number of individuals are made defend
ants including Washington B. Thomas,
president of the American Sugar Rein
ing company and all the directors of the
company; John D. and Adolph y.
Spreckels of San Francisco; Joseph F.
Smith of Salt Lake, head of the Nor
mon church, and Horace Havemeyer,
Louisine w. Havemeyer AdaIlne n
Frelinghuysen, and Electra H. webb,
executors and trustees under the Will
of the late H. o. Havemeyer-
The Trusts Side.
New York, Nov. 2S.-James M.
Beck general counsel of the American
Sugar Refining company, made this
statement:
1.-The companys reply to the various
charges will be seen when its formal
answer is filed in court. For the pres
ent it is sufficient to remind the pubHc
and the companys stockholders thal
1,ae 1Y0n dU
in a similar proceeding by the govern
ment to hold that this company was
an Illegal monopoly under the sherman
law and the court deprecated tine
challenging of the justice of their well
considered and solemn judgments
| ssThe company has no monopoly in
the sugar industry; it produces no raw
sugar and does not and can not con-
! trail the price of the raw material; II
| has no agreements direct or implied
with other sugar companies and is sub
! iect daily to competition of the keenest
! character. 1t has including its beet
sugar interests about 81 per cent OF
| the country'S sugar trade ana II re-
ouires a liberal stretch of the magma
| tion to call this a monopoly 1t does
NOT seek to stifle competition or op-
| Dress the consumer by advancing the
cost of a necessity of life.
| cts refinery profits last year aver
aged less than one-sixth of cent pei
n0nnd. During the last decade wher
the prices of nearly every necessity Of
life have materially advanced, anc
| when the cost of this company's labor
and supplies very largely increased i
| has continued to sell sugar at lower
margin of profit than formerly. II
1870 the price of graduated sugar II
New York was 1871 cents pound; II
1880, 9s; in 1890. 5.32; in 1903, 4;76
| A socalIed trust can not be altogetnel
| had, when its prices form SO striking
| an exception to the general movement
of commodity prices.
| cit is unfortunate that business mer
/ enterprise without subjecting them
selves to proceedings under highly
| technical statute about the meaning Of
| which the courts do not agree, ano
about the wisdom of which thoughtfu
men of all classes are in seriou:
| doubt"