New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-12-13
KISS[l LOSES APPEAL
Supreme Court Holds Conspiracy
Nav Be Continuing Offence.
ANTITRUST LAW DECISION
Kissel and Harmed Must Answer
Further to Indictment Brought
in New York in 1909.

Washington. Dec 12-Announcing the
NYoad rule that a conspiracy under me
Sherman antitrust law may be continu-
sag offence instead of an offence hnllteo TO
the formation OF the conspiracy ana, pos
sibly overt acts Hereunder winch Wouiu
revive the coaspiracy the Supreme Court
OF the United States to-day went ioiis
-~ar toward tispeJling doubt as 10 the law
-rt. direc+ result of the decision is that
c,,,stave Z. Eissel. OF New York. and Thorn
q. r Harmed. Of Philadelphia. must an
.ver further to the Indictment brought IN
1908 IN New York. charging them with con-
s7irzcv with the American Sugar Rellhiiis
COMPANY and others to drive the FennsNi-
.ensl Sugar Refining Company out Of b'isi-
ness
The indirect result viii he that the gov
eminent viii find it easier 10 prosecute COIL
tpiracies under the Sherrpan antitrust law
Instead Of being required 10 show IN an IN
oictmert a conspiracy or an overt act III
9rrtherance thereof within three years or
.ha tim. os Indictment. it IS said that the
accused person viii he required 10 Sho"
shat the conspiracy had been enoed by
abandonment or success more than three
wears before the indictment
Justice Holmes to-day, in announcing the
opinton Of the court. took I'D for minute
consideration the argument that con-
eniracv is a completed crime as soon as
formed. as would tie the case where con-
spiracy were merely CONTRACT
Justice Holiness Opinion.
1T IS true" said Justice Holmes, that
the unlawful agreement satisfied the denhi-
non of the crime, hut ii does not exhaust
ST. II also is true. of course. that the mere
continuance Of the result Of a crime does
not continue the offence But when the plot
ooateTnplates bringing TO pass a continuous
cooperation of the conspirators 10 keep 1t
.,p. and there is such continuous co-opera-
ton it is 8 perversion Of natural thought
sno Of natural language TO call such con-
stnuous co-operation a cinematographic
series Of distinct conspiracies rather than
TO call il 8 single one
Holding that a conspiracy IN restraint OF
trade is different from and more than a
contract IN restraint Of trade. Justice
Holmes summed up the decision of the
court in this manner:
The Indictment charges continuing con-
spiracy. Whether Il does so with technical
suffciency is not before us. All that we de-
eide IL that a conspiracy may have con-
rinuanoe IN time and that where as here
rhs Indictment consistently with the other
Facts alleged that il did so continue to the
cate Of fling. that allegation must be de-
MED under the general issue. and not by
special plea Undeo the general issue ali
offences. including the defence that the
conspiracy was ended by success. abandon
trent or otherwise more than three years
before July ], 1eoa. will be open and IN
affected by what we now decide
Federal Indictment Returned in 1909.
An Indictment was returned in the Fed
eral Court Of New York. in 1909 charging
the American Sugar Refining Company. its
directors, GUstave z. kisseI, Of New York.
sDd Thomas B Harmed. Of PHILADELPHIA
with conspiracy TO restrain interstate com
nserce in violation Of the Sherman Anti
Trust law.
II was alleged that the object of the
conspiracy was to prevent the Pennsyl-
Nznia Sugar Refining Company from doing
business. This result. IL was alleged, was
accomplished through Fissel acting Sc
Cretly as the agent for the American Sugar
Refining Company, lending 70 Adolph Sc
gal, who controlled q majority of The stock
of the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Com
Tany. the sum of s, 250,0o0, and taking as
security the control of the Segal stock in
the FennsS Iva1ia Sugar Refining Company.
All this time. il was alleged, the name of
the lender was kept a secret by Kissel
Following the loan, il was charged, a
vsnia Sugar Refining Company was elect
&c, and this board. acting in the interest
OF The American Sugar Refining Company,
closed up the refinery Of the Pennsylvania
company.
Kissed ard Harmed, VINO had given u
power Of attorney IN connection with the
stock in question. pleaded that the statute
of Limitations forbade their prosecutions.
Trey held that the alleged deal VAS put
through IN 1903. more than three years be-
fore fhe indictment The government con-
tended the conspiracy was continuing
offence. and existed until tie parties with
drew from IL cr the object for which it
YVES formed had haen attained. The federal
court dismissed the indictment as to Kissel
ard Harmed and from this action the gov
eminent appealed 70 the Supreme Court
Al the United states Attorneys office
here the decision OF the United States Su-
--eraa Court Is REGARDED - one Of the
greatest importance and fraught with far
reaching results. II affects not only the
Sugar Trust prosecution for conspiracy, it
-zs said but dozens Of cases 81 over the
country The various lower courts have
rendered contradictory Judgments on de-
r71,irrers raised an conspiracy charges, hut
This is She first time that the Supreme
Court has pronounced ON The question.
Judge Holt IN sustaining the demurrer,
ruled -het as The loan by which the ac-
cuisitlon Of The Pennsylvania Sugar Re-
fnirg Conpsnv had bean secured hT the
sugar Trust bad been made and completed
by January l. 1914. The Indictment fled in
court on July !. 1910. was too late, as the
statute Of limitations runs three years in
such cases
IT addition 70 Gustav E Kissel and
Thomas T Iarned. the other defendants
affected by tia decision are the American
Susar Refining Company. Washington Z.
Thomas president. Arthur Dcnner eX-
treasurer, and the following directors: John
Parsons, George II Frazier. John
Mayer ana Charles n. Senff. Ther DID not
de-aur. but merely pleaded guilty and
awaited the result If the fling Of a Dc