The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-02-05
Sugar Trust Attempts
to Show That Hands
Are Clean.
NO CONSPIRACY,
NO COMBINATION
Stresses Federal Accusation of
Customs Frauds, Admitting
Only That Certain Employees
of Single Refinery Were
Guilty and Money Was
Repaid to Government.

New York, February THE Ameri-
can Sugar Refining Company to-mor-
row morning will file It's unswer In the
United States District Court 10 the suit
brought in November. 1911, by the
Federal government for it's dissolu-
ton. The answer is denial Of the al
legations of unlawful combination or
conspiracy. or of any combination in
restraint OF trade. 1t comprises. to-
gether with the exhibits. lSS printed
paGcs and constitutes the joint and
several answers OF the American Sugar
Refining Company. washington b
Thomas. Arthur Bonner George H.
Frazier. Henry Enizc. Henry c. Mott.
Samuel c. Hoker, Samuel Carr, Edwin
5. Marston. Edwin +. Atkins. Charles
II. Allen. Joseph L. Freeman. Tho
American Sugar Refining Company. of
New York: the franklin Sugar Rein.
ing Company, William w. Harrison,
William w. Frazier. Jr.. and the
Spreckels Sugar Refining Company.
The answer denies every allegation
of the governments bill, and defines
the position Of the company in respect
to the charges brought galnst it from
time to time
Sweeping DeninIs.
Among the most important allega-l
with are the general charges OF con-
.spiracy and combination; the reasonI
urged by the government as guidinGi
the company's formation. It's acquisi-
tlon of an interest in the refining In
dustry of the Pacific coast through the
western Sugar Refining Company. its
purchase OF Philadelphia rafneries, In
Guiding the Segal Refinery; its invest
ment In the National Sugar Refining
Company and In various beet sugar,
companies: the so-called custom frauds
and Its conduct in regard to the prices
OF refined sugar and Its attitude to-
ward competition
The answer denies that the American
Sugar Refining Company. IN January,
1881, or. at any other time. has been a
monopoly or In restraint Ct trade, or
that In January, 1891, the corporation
acquired title to the entire sugar bust
ness Of the United States. It AYERS
that prior to March. 1892, the company
carried on not to eXceel SIS per cent.
of the business.
Denial Is also made that the busi-
ness of the company for many years
has equaled OF Appropriated 80 per
cent. The company, 1t says, rehnes
not to exceed 40 per cent OF the total
amount of refined or manufactured
sugar produced in this country.
Continuing. the answer declares
that since the organization of the
American Company competition in
the manufacture OF refined sugar has
been open and free, and that tho total
output of the company has not in
creased In the past ten years,
Denies Custom Frauds.
The question of the alleged custom
frauds is treated very fully. Tho
answer denies that in order to enrich
themselves. or TO destroy competition
the defendant companies or their of
ficers secured entry of their imports
at weights below the real weights or
that they defrauded the government
out of any sums of money. The de-
PENDANTS admit, however. that prior
to the year 1907, certain employees or
single refinery of the American
Company. for the purpose of making
a more favorable showing OF the
business OF this refinery did without
the knowledge Of any responsible Of
ficcr of the company cause the govern
ment to be defrauded out OF consider
able sums OF money"
When these practices were discover
ed in 1907 the American Company at
once repudiated them, ana placed all
the information 1T had concerning
these occurrences at the disposal of
the Federal government. The amount
lost to the government through these
practices was 100000, which sum
was subsequently paid to the govern
ment.