The San Francisco call., 1910-11-29
Miss IncIda Kinslow Drnd donna of The Cay CoIegan

/ w ISS IUlClQQ HUISlOU, IJiuftu u
corporations be enjoined from permit
ting the exercise of rights incident TO
the holding Of such shares and that
they be enjoined from paying dividends
to. the holders
That the shares of capital stock in
the National sugar refining company,
Utah-Idaho sugar company, Great
Western sugar company and Continen-
/, tai sugar company, formerly held by
the late II. o. Havemeyer, were unlaw-
fully acquired by him and are now be-
/ ing unlawfully used by the executors
and trustees under his will, who are
made defendants in the suit in which
the government asks that the executors
and trustees be enjoined from further
using the powers incident to the shares
so held by them as to bring about CO.
operation between the issuing COM
panies. and the other defendant corpo-
rations.
That the defendants be enjoined
from continuing to carry out the pur-
poses of the unlawful combination and
conspiracy and be required to withdraw
from all connections herewith.
That the court grant such general
relief as may be proper by way of in
junction, receivership or otherwise
CONTROL 30 PER CENT TRADE.
The criminal sugar combine. the pc
tition sets forth. was the Sugar Re
fineries company, which was formed
in August. 1887, under the lead or ID.
O. Havemeyer and embraced companies
which together carried on 90 per cent
Of the sugar trade in interstate and
foreign trade of the country.
Within two years of the formation Of
the original company, it is charged,
the combina ton closed II refneries. In
1889 il obtained the independent Cali
fornfa company, leaving OUTSIDE tne
combination only the four Philadel-
phia concerns The state of New York
attacked the arrangements in suit
TO dissolve the North sugar refining
company. which was one of the par
ties to the agreement and the courts
held the combination to be Illegal
Thereupon the present American sugar
refining company was formed IN jan
uary. 1901, and continued the business
of the combine.
From 1892 to 1900, 1t is said, inde-
pendent refineries started up and 9TH
ers tried to- One company built plant
in Baltimore. but before it could oper-
ate the American company bought It's
caoital stock and never allowed 1t TO
operate its refinery. The same thing
happened 70 the United States refinery,
IT is said. in 1896, when 1t built plant
at Camden. n. J. The suppression OF
the Pennsylvania sugar refining COM
nauv. controlled by Hawaiian plant
ers. was put out of business, it is
alleged bv means of an agreement
whereby the combine was to pay $500,
600 ,. year for three years, provided 1t
retired from the field
The government charges that the
American has obtained unfair advant-
age over competitors by obtaining
Y1cf1
as was brought out in the government
recent suit by receiving rebates from
railroads. and by working in harmony
with wholesale grocers associations
throughout the country and keeping up
the price of sugar.
BEET SUGAR SUFFERED
A considerable portion Of the petl-
tion is devoted to the acquisition by
the combine of the beet sugar plants
when that industry began to grow
formidable. In 1901 all the companies
except the Spreckels company, whlcl
was a beet sugar concern, were lnde-
pendent The American, 1t is charged
began its campaign by sending into
the middle west large quantities of
sugar on which IL had obtained rebates
and free storage during the summer.
In the fail. which is the time the beet
sugar companies began to sell their
products, the American is said to have
nut its prices to less than cost, inJur-
ing 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
exacting a tribute for all sugar sold
by such companies. The American
beet sugar company, it is charged, was
forced to pay quarter cent per
pound on all sugar it sold.
At present, according to the petition,
the American company and It's sub
sidiaries control 70 per cent of the to-
tai output of refined sugar in the coun-
try which is said to be enough to per-
nit it absolutely to control prices after
meeting a certain amount Of competi-
tion.
DEFENDANTS NAMED
The defendants are the American
sugar refining company, it's directors
and officers and all cane and beet
sugar companies ia which it holds
stock or over which it has control by
the holding of stock in them by COM
panies, which in turn are controlled by
the American. The companies made
defendant, in addition to the American
sugar refining company, are the
American sugar refining company of
New York, the Franklin sugar refining
company of Philadelphia, Spreckels
sugar refining company of Philadelphia,
Western sugar refining company of San
Francisco, California sugar refinery of
San Francisco, National sugar refining
company of New Jersey, National sugar
refining company of New York, New
York sugar refining company, Mollen-
hauer sugar refining company of
Brooklyn, W. J. Mccain sugar refin-
ing company of Philadelphia, Cuban
American sugar company of New York,
Colonial sugar company of New York,
Alameda sugar company of San Fran
cisco, Union sugar company of San
Francisco. Spreckels sugar company of