New-York tribune., 1912-02-05
SUGARS ANSWER TO
Be GENERAL DENIAL
Reply to Governments Suit for
Dissolution Under Sherman
Law Will Be Filed To-day.
CALLS TRUST" BENEFICIAL
Underweighing Frauds Dis
claimed and Employees De-
sirous of Making a
Showing Blamed.

The answer Of the American Sugar Re-
fning Company to the governments dis
solution suit brought under the Sherman
law will be filed to-day in the United
States District Court. The answer is a
general denial of the allegations of un-
lawful combination or conspiracy in re-
straint of trade and commerce, and con-
tains the plea that the cause of action
involved in the knight case was in all
substantial respects the same as the
cause of action involved in the govern
ments present suit and that by the de-
cree of the Supreme Court fsvorng the
company in the knight case the United
States is equitably estopped from now
attacking the legality Of the ownership
of certain subsidiary companies by the
American Sugar Refining Company. The
document constitutes the joint and sew
eral answers of the following defendants
named in the governments suit:
The American Sugar Refining Company,
Washington B. Thomas. Arthur Donner,
George H Frazier Henry E. Niese, Henry
c. Mott, Samuel c. Hooker. Samuel Carr,
Edwin S, Marston, Edwin F. Atkins
Charles II. Allen, Joseph Z. Freeman the
American Sugar Refining Company Of
New York. the Franklin Sugar Refining
Company. William w, Harrison. William
W. Frazier, jr.. and the Spreckels Sugar
Refining Company.
James NJ Beck, counsel to the Ameri-
can Sugar Refining Company, appears as
solicitor for the defendants named, and
associated with him are Richard Olney,
John G. Johnson and Frank l. Crawford.
Among the more important allegations OF
the governments bill which are dealt
with at length in the Americans answer
are the general charges of conspiracy and
combination, the reas n urged by the gov
ernment as guiding the company's for
nation, it's acquisition of an interest IN
the refining industry of the Pacific Coast.
through the Western Sugar Refining Com
pany; its purchase of Philadelphia re-
fneries. including the Segal refinery; its
investment in the National Sugar Ret1n-
Ing Company and in various beet sugar
companies, the so-called cur toms frauds y
and its conduct in regard 10 the prices
of refined sugar and its attitude toward
competition.
Output Only 40 Per Cent, Answer sa"s.
In regard to the charges of combination
and conspiracy the answer says the
American Sugar Refining Company has
never been a combination in material or
unreasonable or undue restraint of trade,
or that it monopolized or attempted to
nonopolize the sugar trade. 1t denies
that the company acquired in January
1891 more than 90 per cent of the sugar
business of the country, and AYERS the
fact that prior to March, 1892, the com
pany carried on business not to exceed
65 per cent of the entire manufacture
of refined sugar and its byproducts. The
answer further denies that since that
time the business Of the company ever
eoualled or approached 90 per cent of the
total Of the countrys sugar business, and
SAYS that now the company's output does
not exceed about 40 per cent of the coun-
try's total.
Disputing the reasons which the govern