New-York tribune., 1912-03-13
! {. PARSONS TARGET
FOR W|SE'S ATTACK
Prosecutor in Opening Address
in Sugar Trial Singles
Him Out.
gASES SUIT ON DECAL0GUE
Attorney Says Policy of Amer
lean Sugar Company Toward
Rival Broke Tenth
Commandment.

In his opening address to the jury in
the Federal District Court yesterday
Henry A. Wise, United States Attorney.
left no doubt that the government in ths
prosecution of the five sugar men now
on trial before Judge Hand would la
particular stress upon the activity OF
John f. Parsons, the Ied former coun-
sol for the American Sugar Refining
COMPANY. in the alleged conspiracy that
led TO the closing of the Philadelphia
plant of the Pennsylvania Sugar Refin-
ing Company.
A considerable part of the address was
devoted TO .dr. Parsons. who. Mr. Wise
said. had peen not only counsel for the
American company but had sat in its
hoard of directors for many years. he
had taken part in many of the most i'm
nortant affairs of that company as a
director and not as counsel. Mr.. Wise
declared and when the matter now the
subject of this trial came to him it did
NOT come to him simply as counsel.
Mr. Parsons knew that the loan of the
American .ugar Refining Company to
sssal on condition that it secure TO the
corporation control of the Pennsylvania
Sugar Refining Company would defraua
the minority stockholders Of me Penn
svlvania, Mr.. Wise said, because he re-
fused at first to sanction the transac-
ton unless those minority holders con-
sented. though he changed his mind
when he was told that he could deal
r+fG
jority Of which could be obtained.
In the face of his declination tC rec
ommend this loan," Mr.. Wise said. he
turns about and approves of it, without
the consent Of the minority stockholders
and without the consent of the men who
paid their cash for those bonds; and az
an absolute condition of the making or
that loan he says: There must be put
upon the minutes of this company res
olution by the directors of this company
that the corporation shall not operate.
And Segal, in his anxiety for the money
to conduct his enterprise, betrays his
trust and has his lawyer call meeting
of the board Of directors Of the Pennsyl-
vania company and a resolution is
passed which had been drafted by Mr..
Parsons providing that during the con-
tinuance of this loan the refinery should
not operate.
Calls Parsons Prime Mover.
80, paper after paper is prepared,
signed and delivered, all the creation OF
the defendant Parsons, and on Decem-
Der 80. 1908, a plug has been put in
every wheel Of the refinery, and it is
peacefully put to sleep"
The reasons and purposes Of the loan
were portrayed exactly by Mr. Parsons
in letter to Samuel Untermyer, who
was retained later by Segal TO help him
out of the muddle, Mr.. Wise said, and
quoted the letter, as follows:
"The reason We made the loan was to
keep that refinery from operating"
The part of each of the defendants In
the alleged conspiracy was described by
Mr.. Wise. Washington B. Thomas,
president Of the American Sugar Re-
fning Company; Arthur Donner, its
treasurer; George II. Frazier, director
and Thomas B. Harmed, Philadelphia
lawyer and SegaIs former counsel, were
connected by him with the case.
Scores Of letters bearing on the trans
action upon which the charges were
based were marked in evidence during
the day to be read later. They were
letters which passed between the de-
fendants, Henry Havemeyer, Gustav
Kissel, Charles r. Heike and others.
Joseph Freeman, secretary Of the Ameri-
can Sugar Refining Company. was put
On the stand to produce various docu-
ments and letters. Thorn Kissel, only
son Of the late Gustav Kissel, was the
only other witness called, and he pro-
duced certain papers and letters which
had been left by his father.
The court room was crowded for the
opening remarks Of Mr.. Wise. If there
was anything extraordinary in the
charges brought in this case, as had been
remarked by Mr.. Nicoll it was not be-
cause OF any novel application Of law to
the facts, he said, but because of the
character Of the men who allowed them
selves to enter and engage in the conduct
which he would lay before the jury. Mr..
Wise said:
1t Is not necessary TO talk about the
SHERMAN law or any man made law. IL
! simply charged against these men
snat tncy violated law which was
Mahaeo down by the Lord to Moses In
ele Ientn Commandment: Thou shalt not
SSset tny neighbors house, nor any
uing mat Is thy neighbors.
Moses and tho Sherman Law
That Is the law that these men are
vi vi trlal FOR violating and nothing more.
.hat law has passed down the ages, 1t
40 Incorporated in every state law there
tS, ana II has been incorporated in the
Snrrihan antitrust law.
me charge is simply that these men,
s nels tne officers and directors of cor
polauon, being the men who framed and
svserhed ed the policy of that corporation,
VIII covetousness, with desire for
,no1.opoly. -, with the purpose Of obtaining
II. tlat corporation and to themselves
s,ife snv entife business OF manufacturing and
s sugar IN the United States, were
pursulng policy Of monopolization, so
@ a' any person who was endeevoring to
se' INTO mat business was looked upon
~ - an intruder, and they did not purpose
siiat eny one should have any OF that
business but themselves
ror twenty years that corporation
pursued this course through the individ-
uai efforts Of these defendants Mr. Wise
saio' and finally secured control of 10
psf cent Of Tie entire sugar business OF
me country. But in 1903 these men
,oand their corporation confronted with
POSSIBLE and indeed probable competi-
lion by the PennsyIvania Sugar poApIno