New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-07-21

corporation should issue! aSheu 'ePi'
sentative Madison
The witness said he did not mean that.
II should be regulated, as the law now
regulates to the extent of requiring GER
tain value back of the stock.
81 can follow YOU to the point where you
undertake to measure the ability of men,
said Mr.. Madison, but how are YOU going
10 do that when human life is transitory'
don't see No will deny that the element
of goodwill and business integrity enters
into the valuation Of stock, but to pursue
the matter as far as you do. it would ap-
pear 10 me that that is, in the vcrnacular
taking the lid of, and there would be no
limit"
Mr.. Madison added that he thought the
evidence already before the committee
showed that about 100000 Of the &''c"'-
900 capital Of the American company, at It's
inception. was water
The witness said he did not care to dis
mute plain assertion by the committee
man. but that his idea Of watered stock
was something entirely different.
Mr.. Garrett had Mr.. Parsons trace the
history Of the formation Of the original
Sugar Re7neriess Company in 1857. and
the subsequent organization Of the Anen-
can Sugar Refining Company In 1891, AFTER
the suit had been brought here against the
North River Refining Company. which re-
suited IN the dissolution Of the so-called
trust under the first agreement.
Saws Tammany Instisated Suit.
Mr. Parsons declared that Tammany Hall
had irstigated the suit against the North
River company. Asked what reason Tam
many had for this. he parted the question
Directs. but intimated that the party ami
ated with Tammany wanted to make po-
litcal capital at the time
You will recall that the, suit was insti-
tuted by the Attorney General Of the
state?" interposed Congressman Sulzer.
Yes" replied the witness, "hut some one
may have told him to bring tt
Mr.. Barnes said he was willing TO
take the principal credit for drawing the
original agreement Of the so-caled trust
and fathering the idea of combining the
seventeen companies The formation or
the American company left matters prac-
tically where they were before the North
River company suit. he said. He main
tanned that the agreement he had drawn
for absorbing the beet sugar rehneries by
the American company. and which was
afterward repudiated by Wayne Mac
Veagh. counsel for the beet interests,
would have greatly benefited the beet
sugar industry. and was not intended 10
destroy connection. He could not venture
a reason why the New England territory
had been excluded under this agreement.
The committee was anxious to learn what
Of apnauHiN the agree
ment consolidating the seventeen com
panies with the American company, which
showed how the stock Of the parent com
pany had been distributed among them.
The witness said he had not been par
ticularly concerned with that end Of the
negotiations and couldn't tell what had
| become OF IT,
Joseph +. Freeman, secretary OF the
| American Sugar Refinery Company, was
called as witness prior to Mr.. Parsons's
! examination and was asked if he had been
| able to find a resolution which appeared in
the minutes Of a directors meeting pur-
porting TO show that campaign contrbu-
tons had been made by the American
company The secretary said he had made
a dnigeut search through the records IN
his possession and could not find any such
resolution.
Mr.. Parsons's examination will he con
tinued at the forenoon session to-day. The
members Of the committee will be the
guests Of Collector Loeb on revenue cut
fer this afternoon and will sail near
enough to some Of the local sugar re-
dneries TO get an outside" view OF them.
Later on some Of the members will go
through the rehneries. Representatives
-. flIl
81 John ArbuCkle near Poughkccpsie,
Monday afternoon 20 take his testimony.