Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1910-11-29

Of the beet sugar plants, when that indus
try began to grow formidable. In 1901 all
these companies, except the Spreckels COM
pany, which was a beet sugar concern,
we're independent The American Il Is
charged, began its campaign by sending
into the middle west large quantities OF
sugar on which It had obtained rebates
and free storage during the summer. In
the fall, which is the time the beet sugar
companies begin to sell their products, the
American is said to have put its prices to
less than cost. injurlng the business Of
the beet sugar companies. In 1902, having
weakened and discouraged these companies.
the petition recites, the American company
began to buy them in, in some cases ex-
acting a tribute for all sugar sold by
such companies. The American Beet Sugar
company, It is charged, was forced to pay
! 4 cent per pound on all sugar it sold.
| In Full Control of Prices.
| At present according to the petition the
| American company and its subsidiaries
control 70 per cent Of the total output of
refined sugar in the country, which is said
to be enough to permit it absolutely TO
control prices. after meeting certain
! amount of competition.
The defendants are the American Sugar
Refining company, its directors and off
| GERS ana all cane anu Dt6L sugar companies
| in which It holds stock or over which it
has control by the holding Of stock in them
| by companies which in turn are controlled
! by the American.
| List of Defendants,
The companies made defendants in addi-
| ton to the American Sugar Refining com
pany are the American Sugar Refining
| company of New York the Franklin Sugar
Refining company of Philadelphia, the
spreckels Sugar Refining company of Phil
adelphia, Western Sugar Refining company
| Of San Francisco, California Sugar Refln-
cry of San Francisco, National Sugar RE
| filming company Of New Jersey, National
Sugar Refining company Of New York.
New York Sugar Refining company, Mol
lenhauer Sugar Refining company Of
/ Brooklyn, w. ]. McCahan Sugar Refining
company Of Philadelphia, Cuban-American
| Sugar company Of New York. Colonial
Sugar company Of New York, Alameda
Sugar company Of San Francisco, Union
Sugar company Of San Francisco, spreckels
Sugar company of San Francisco, Utah
Idaho Sugar company OF Salt Lake City,
Amalgamated Sugar company Of ogden,
Utah; Lewiston Sugar company Of Lewis
ton, Utah; Great Western Sugar company
OF Jersey City, n. j.; Sterling Sugar com
pany of Denver. Morgan County Construc-
ton company OF Denver, Billings Sugar
company OF Billings. Mont; SCOTS Bluff
Supar company Of Denver, Michigan Sugar
company Of Saginaw, Iowa Sugar com
pany OF waverly, Ia. Carver County Sugar
company Of Chaska. Mimi; Continental
Sugar company OF Cleveland. and the Me-
nominee River Sugar company of Menomi-
nee, Mich.
Several individuals Named.
In addition to these corporations a num-
Der of individuals are made defendants in
Guiding Washington 3. Thomas, president
J of the American Sugar Refining company,
and all the directors Of the company; John
d. and Adolph b. spreckels OF San Fran
cisco. Joseph F. Smith of Salt Lake City
head Of the Mormon church, and Horace
Hevemeyer, Louisine W. Havemeyer, Ada.
line II. Freylinghuysen and Electra H.
Webb. executors, and trustees under the
will OF the late II. o, Havemeyer.
Attorney for Combine Talks.
James NJ. Beck, general counsel Of the
= American Sugar Refining company, made
this statement:
The companys reply TO the various
charges will be seen when it's formal an
! swer is filed in court. For the present II
is sufficient to remind the public and tn,
NpAAApaAlg oAoNhllbluEkb AudL Nue supreme
2 court has already declined in a similar pro
ceeding by the government 20 hold that
! this company was an Illegal monopoly un.
Fl der the Sherman law and the court has
! deprecated the challenging OF the justice
OF it's we'll considered and solemn judg,
ments'
d THE company has no monopoly in tn,
r sugar industry; II produces no raw sugar
% and does not and cannot control the pric,
l OF the raw material; 1t has no agreement,
; direct or implied with other sugar com.
b panies and Is subject daily TO competition
. OF the keenest character
4 If it appears, when the supreme cour
interprets the sherman law in the Tobacco,
. and Standard OH case, that the sugar com
d pany is in any respect violating the She's
= man law, steps will Immediately and vol
3 unfairly be taken to comply with the Law
as thus interpreted
1t is unfortunate that business mel