The Mobridge news. [volume] (Mobridge, Walworth Co., S.D.) 190?-1917, 1910-12-02
AFTER SUGAR CO..
GOVERNMENT PETITION DE.
MANDs DISSOLUTION OF AMER.
IcAN REFINING COMPANY.
FILE LONG EXPECTED SUIT
Attacks Methods of n. o. Havemeyer,
Deceased. - Prosecutor Charges
He Got S1o,ooo,ooo
as Gift.

Washington, D. C.-Attacking the
American Sugar Refining company, ia
miliarly known as the sugar trust, as
a lawless combination, the federal
government filed its long expected
suit for the dissolution oil the corpo-
ration. The petition was filed by
Henry A. Wise, district attorney, in
the United States circuit court for the
Southern district of New York.
One of the allegations is that the
late II. o. H~avemeyer, long head of
the sugar combine, received $40, 000,-
900 common stock of the National
Sugar Refining company of New Jer-
sey as a gift at the time the cor
poration was formed to take into the
combine four Independent concerns,
the National Sugar Refining company,
run by B. II. HOY ellis, Son & Co.; the
New York Sugar Refining company
of Long Island City, N. Y, operated
by Claus Doshern; the Mollenhauer
Sugar Refining company of Brooklyn
and the w. J. McCahan Sugar Rein
ing company of Philadelphia. These
companies up to 1900 were independ-
ent and, it is said, the American COM
pany was determined to acquire them.
Under a plan inaugurated by Mr..
Havemeyer, John e. Parsons and Jas.
H.. Post, the National company was
formed and took over the four plants,
Mr.. Post obtaining options on them.
When the new stock was delivered,
the petition sets forth, Post delivered
100000 shares of common stock, the
entire issue, with a par value of $780,
100000, to Mr.. Havemeyer.
The government also alleges that
when the American company took
Owe the four Philadelphia companies,
the Franklin Sugar Refining company,
the Spreckles Sugar Refining company,
the Delaware Sugar House and the e.
G. knight company, Mr.. Havemeyer
and his brother, Theodore Havemeyer,
bought As per cent Of the stock of the
Spreckles company and then sold it at
a large profit to the American com.
pany, of which both were directors.
In general the petition charges that
the defendants for some time past
had been and now are engaged in an
unlawful combination and conspiracy
to restrain the trade and
among and between the several states
and territories of the United States
and with foreign nations, in raw sugar,
sugar beets, refined sugar, molasses,
syrups and other by-products of raw
sugar and sugar beets, and to mon
opolize same. Such unlawful COM
bination and conspiracy is the result
and ~outgrowth of a series of wrong
full acts extending over a period of
many a and participated in by
defendants, respectively, in the man
ner and to the extent hereinafter more
fully set forth. In participating in the
various acts, agreements and combina-
tons hereinafter described all of the
defendants have been actuated by
wrongful intent to restrain said inter
state and foreign trade and commerce
in raw and refined sugar and related
articles, and to monopolize parts there
Of"
The government charges that the
American has obtained unf1ir advan.
tage over competitors by obtaining
money on imports by customs frauds,
by receiving rebate from railroads and
by working in harmony with wholesale
g%rocers' associations throughout the
country and keeping up the price of
sugar.
A considerable portion of the peti.
ton Is devoted to the acquisition by
the combine of the beet sugar plants,
when that industry began to grow
formidable. In 1901 all these com.
panies. except the S~preckles company.
which al a beet sugar concern, were
independent.
At present, according to the peti-
tion, the American company and its
subsidiaries control 70 per tent 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 a certain amount Of com.
petition.