The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-06-01
|NAGNATES MAY
WEAR STRIPES
Attorney General Will Attempt
TO Secure Conviction of
Trust Officials.
POINTED QUESTIONS
ASKED BY COMMITTEE
Wickersham Gets Fees From
Sugar Refining Company;
Advises Steel Corporation.

WASHINGTON, May 3l.-The recent
decision OF the supreme court IN the
Standard Oil and American tobacco cases
will result in a sweeping attempt TO Sc
cure criminal conviction of violators ot
the antitrust law. according to Attorney
General Wickersham. who appeared to-
lday before the house committee on eX-
Inenditures in the department OF justice.
4 The attorney general testified that ne
Mad advised the United States Steel
horporation on several occasions from
hsOl to 1909 during his connection with
khe firm of Strong & Cadwallader and also
khat he had received his share OF his fee
Nfurned into the firm for services TO the
IAmerican Sugar Refining company, per
7, sonally attended TO by Henry w Tait'
brother of the president Mt wicker
shan1 said his share was about S2G,UOO,
Gave Sugar Trust Advice.
Mr.. Wickersham said that after he be-
came attorney general. John Henry Ham
1nond represented Strong e Cadwallader
as counsel for the so called suger trust
in the purchase of the friar lands. He
ion permitting the sale OF these lands he
did not know Hammond represented the
president Of the American Sugar Refining
company, Mr.. Havemeyer,
the firm with steel affairs, Mr. Wicker
sham said:
II personally have advised the United
States Steel corporation IN one or two
"Dld Strong & Cadwallader ever repre-.
sent the New Yosk cotton exchange"
Chairman Bell asked.
Yves. Henry W, Taft was counsel for
the exchange" Mr.. Wickershem replied.
"and think he still continues in that
capacity
Why 100000 Was Accepted.
n The chairman sought particularly to
learn from the attorney genera! VIII the
department of Justice and treasury de
partment accepted a S2,000,000 settlement
from the American Sugar Refining COM
i many as restitution for undervaluations
at the port OF New York. rather than en-
force the severe penalty provided for by
VMr. Wickersham replied that the de-
bartment felt the evidence at hand was
not sufficient to support a claim for PEN
Ufies, though II was bis belief that res
Mutton was made because the corpora
ION feared penalties would be Imposed.
t"Then IL was your judgment. suggest
ested Mr.. Beall. that notwithstanding
he government had access TO a memo
f1dum book showing the real weight Of
hgar imported and to books showing
taudulent weights. If the government had
htempted TO collect the penalty there
Vas strong probability of fallurc2"
Eyes" Mr.. Wickersham answered, 81
Ihink the s2o0o,oOO settlement was the
ocet possible arrangement"
1 The attorney general denied that there
WAS any agreement preventing criminal
.(prosecution.
"That right" he said. was specially
Iyeserved 10 the government"
Il Convection Possible Now,
Mr.. Wickersham was asked why the
government thus far had failed 10 lodge
any trust ma enates" in prison.
l. eve have done the best we could"
he said, but there has been an unwiIi-
lngness on the part OF the luries and
the antitrust law. Until the supreme
court laid down its definite construction
III the two cases Just decided their
law has always been open 10 question
md has been construed in different ways
cy different courts Juries are becoming
more willing now. however. TO convict
and judges vino nave been reluctant to
IMPOSE prison penalties now have the
Eaprerue court decisions TO sustain
them.''
Mr.. Wickersham said he believed prison
LEDtences would be the most effective
'peaps Of enforcing respect for the anti
Gust laws. Criminal prosecutions against
he meat packers. milk dealers. grocers,
De naval stores and window glass com
NATIONS and alleged yiolators of the
Aenti-trust law. he said, would be aug
~Spted by other prosecutions. On this
sect the government had definite
(been no criminal proceedings against
heads of the Standard on and to-
leo corporations
n view of the fact that we have Sc
ed decisions In these cases only with
6fhe last two weeks. il seems to me
Al question answers itself, said Mr..
tckersham. Now. however. We have
b Interpretation OF the anti-rust law
p which we can proceed"
The Cotton Pool Case
fThe attorney general was closely uues-
Pned by Mr., Beall as to the cotton
Sses In New York. but he refused TO
psclose the govcfnment's future action.
eskcd why actions were brought against
fnose seeking TO elevate the price OF
faw cotton rather than against the spin
hers and the bears" who were trying
10 depress it, Mr.. Wickershsm said the
4 govern neot had believed Il much easier
10 reach the seven men controlling the
raw cotton pool, against whom Il had ex-
act information.
THE statute of limitations has not
run against the others ne added 'Ir
1he government is sustained in this first
cotton case, the other combinations may
attacked"
Fas there been any investigation of
(attempt OF bears to dcpress cotton
US In New York and New Orleans? ?"
fArman Bcall asked.
No. | have never had any facts
nPSht t. my attention that seemed to
eE violation OF the antitrust law
ttuch matters"
Tracks Washed Ont