New-York tribune., 1912-02-05

ment alleged as haNlnS u'''' ''i''' -,
nation OF the predecessor OF the Amer y w o.,
Sugar Refining Company. the answer
the seventeen companies comblheu ]"
hands of trustees in August lso' oe'"
for q considerable number Of years P
TO that time the aggregate refining CdPr' -
Of the companies then existing had "e'"
very largely i'm excess OF the deIhaH'' W
the American market and the great W.
production OF refined sugar brought "ri
and destructive competition. which resui'e'
in unreasonable reduction of prohts' throw
ins into bankruptcy not less than eigh'eei
sugar companies and seriously endaneerihe
the financial standing Of others
Combination Prevented Rum.
The formation of the trust, the answer
saws, TO some extent checked TINS uesti uN
tive competition and prevented the financial
ruin of the many sugar companies Whlc"
had not vet succumbed. Other reasons lof
combination were, according to the answer
that single management meant economies
and an opportunity TO better the cohu''''"'
under which employees worked
Regarding the holding Of half the s'o'N
of the Western Sugar Refining COMPANY
of California. the defendants admit tha'
they held that stock from 1891 until sep
tember, 1911, when ii was sold and dellN-
cred TO John D. and Adolph b. sprecAe,''
who with Claus Spreckels had heiu '"'
other half of the stock.
Concerning the American Sugar hehhiiis
Company's connection with the PennsEi'
vania Sugar Refining Company matter III,
PENNSYLVANIA being the company proinoleu
by Adolph Segal. and in which George II
Earle. jr, was afterward concerned as re-
ceiver the answer says:
These defendants deny that Gustav r
Kissel and the then directors and oIlCeI o 81,
of the American Sugar REFINING C1 CoIiPamo }rn,,,.
or either; or any, Of them' or Tr 6nring the
years 1904, 1905 and 1906, did lnNolNe sal.
Adolph Segal in business comphcatlohs a. id
cause said Kissel TO withhold from Soto -
Segal large. or any. sums OF money uus o "
said Segal under the said written agree
ment of December 80, 1903. or unuer d1i u,
agreement. or in any way Whdtsoer,eeIr,' y,
that the said persons or salo Coiiipam9 ssscI
any of them. so. or In any way, haI ~
or enbarra ssed said Segal That ne Ma'
unable to pay either the princlpal oI ~.
terest upon his note, or that the! Pu. ob.
stacles in the way OF ms paAIns' ,s 20 yin 9
structed or prevented him from paNins
said debt: and these defendants deny Una
said Kissel and the directors ana olnCei> :
OF the American Sugar Refining Conpant
or any of them or said COMPANY; PTeEre..'
ed the Pennsylvania Sugar Rehnlng CTt,, e,l,,
pany from engaging in interstate or ioteIsI ie
trade and commerce In raw or reh"e'
sugar. y...
The answer further AYERS that the ue
fendant company carried on the most acti'e
end continuous competition with the Ma
tional Sugar Refining Company OF Ne"
Jersey and many Of Its subsidiaries Ioh-
cerning the issue of 10000 shares OF com
mon stock of the National which were oe-
livered to u o. Havemeyer, the American
answer says it was not a party TO 'he
transaction and in no way concerned with H.
To the governments allegation that the
American Sugar Refining Company invested
in beet sugar companies to monoponze the
trade. the answer says that on the con-
trary. it aided the beet sugar industry ana
contributed largely to its great develop
ment The answer also says that the COM
pany has largely reduced its holdings In
beet sugar stocks. the sales including
81, go. 900 of American Beet Sugar Company
stock