Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1910-11-28

draw from all connections Herewith.
THAT the court grant such general
relief as may be proper by way of in
junction. reccivcrship or otherwise"
CRIMINAL. COMBINE.
The criminal sugar combine, the pc
tition sets forth, was the Sugar Re-
fineries company which was formed in
August. 1887, under the lead of II. o..
Havemeyer and embraced companies
which together carried on 80 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 combination closed - rcfinerles. In
1899, it obtained the independent Cali
fornia company, leaving outside the
combination only the four Philadelphia
concerns. The state of New York at
tackled the arrangement in suit to
dissolve the North Sugar Refining conf
pany, which was one of the parties to
the agreement and the courts held the
combination to be Illegal.
Thereupon the present American
Sug'tr Refining company was formed
In January, 1891 and continued the
business Of the combine.
From 1892 to 1900, II Is said, indie
pendent reflncries started up and 9th
ers tried to. One company built plant
In Baltimore, but before 1t could OPP
crate the American company bought
its capital stock and never allowed 1t
to operate its refinery. The same thing
Z happened to the United States refinery,
1t is said, in 1885, when 1t built a plant
at Camden, N. j. The suppression of
the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining COM
pany, which was brought out in a suit
against the American company some
years ago, is also referred to. The Cal
ifornia s. Hawaii Sugar company, con-
trolled by Hawaiian planters. was put
out of business, 1t Is alleged, by means
of an agreement. whereby the combine
was TO pay 100000 a year for three
years provided 1t retired from the
field.
The government charges that the
American has obtained unfair advan-
tage over competitors by obtaining
money on imports by custom frauds,
as was brought out In the govern
mcnt's recent suits: by receiving re-
bates from railroads and by working
In harmony with wholesale grocers as
Sociations throughout the country and
keeping UP the price of sugar.
ACQUIRING BEET SUGAR PLANTS.
A considerable portion OF the petit
ton Is devoted to the acquisition by
the combine of the beet sugar plants
when that industry began to grow for
midable. In 1901 all the companies
SNSCplF NIlG bplRttNclS company WiI1A
was n beet sugar concern, were in
dependent. The American, 1t Is charg-
ed. began its campaign by sending into
the middle west large quantities of
sugar on which 1t had obtained rebates
and FREQ storage durinr tho summer
In the fall, which Is the time the beet
sugar companies began to sell their
products, the American Is said to have
put It's prices to less than cost injurlng
tho business of the beet sugar COM
panies. In 1902, having weakened and
discouraged these companies, the petit
ton recltos. the American company
began to buy them in, in some cases
cxucting a tribute for all sugar sold by
such companies. The American Beet
Sugar company, II is charged. was
forced to pay a quarter of cent per
pound on all sugar 1t sold.
AT present according to the petition,
the American company aud its sub
salaries control u per cent Of the total
output OF refined sugar In the country,
which is said to be enough to permit
1t absolutely to control prices after
meeting certain amount of Competi-
ton.
THE DEFENDANTS.
Tho defendants are the American
Sugar Refining company, Its directors
and officers, and all cane and beet
sugar companies In which It holds
stock or over which 1t has control by
tho holding of stock In them by COM
panics which in turn are controlled
by the American. The companies made
defendant In addition to tho Amcri-
can Sugar Refining company. are the
Sugar Refining company OF |
New York. tho Franklin Sugar Rciin-
Ing company of Philadelphia, Spreckels
Sugar Refining company of Phila-
dclphia, Western Sugar Refining com
Tany of san Francisco, California
Sugar Refinery of San Francisco, Ma
tional Sugar Refining company of
New Jersey, National Sugar Refining |
of New York, New York
Sugar Refining company. Mollenhaucs
Sugar Refining company of Brooklyn. |
w. j. McCahcn Sugar Refining COM
pany OF Philadelphia. Cubn-Ameri- |
cnn sugar company of New York, |
Colonial Sugar company of New York, |
Alameda Sugar company Of san iran,
cisco. Union Sugar company OF san |
francisco, sprcckels Sugar company |
Of San Francisco Utah-ldaho Sugar
company OF Salt Lake City. Amalga-
mated Sugar company of Ogden, Utnh'
Lewiston Sugar company Of Lewiston,
IDAHO; Great Western Sugar company
If Jersey City, n. j.; Sterling Sugar
of Denver, Morgan County
Construction company of Denver Bill.
ings Sugar company of Billings,
Won't, SCOTS BLUM Sugar company of
Denver, Michigan Sugar company of
Saginaw, Mich; Iowa Sugar companyI
,r {yvavcrly, Iowa; Carver County
sugar company OF Chaska. Mimi; Con-
mental Sugar company OF Cleveland.
Ohio, and tho Menominec River
sugar company. Of Mcnommcc, Mich.
+ PRIEST. SMITH a DEFENDANT.
In addition to these corporations a
lumber Of individuals are made de-
'endants. Incl,ldins Washington B.
Thomas. president of the American
sugar Refining company. and all the
Iirectors of the company; John D. and
,dolph b, Spreckels of San Francsco:
'oseph IT,. Smith Of Salt Lake y City.
,nnlWnr tho Atprnlon Church and |