The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-02-05
Allegations Denied


 for it's dissolution
 Allegations Denied
 The answer is a denial of the allega- tions of unlawful combination or con spiracy or of any combination in re- etraint of trade. It comprises, together with the exhibits. 1SS printed pages and constitutes the joint and several answers of the American Sugar Refining company, Washington B. Thomas, Arthur Bonner, George II. Frazier, Henry E. Niez, Hen " c. Mott, Samuel c. Hooker, Samuel Carr, Edwin S. Marston, Edwin F. At lxins, Charles Fl. Allen, Joseph E. Free man. the American Sugar Refining com pany of New York, the Franklin Sugar Refining company. William ". Harri- son, William w. Frazier. Jr., and the Spreckels Sugar Refining company. James NJ. Beck, counsel for the Amer ioan Sugar Refining company appears as solicitor for the defendants named and associated with him are Richard Ol- ney, John J. Johnson and Frank l.. Crawford.
 The answer treats every allegation of .the governments bill in detail and de- fines the position of the company in re- spect to the charges brought against it from time to time.
 Among the most important allegations of the governments bill dealt with are general charges of conspiracy and com bination, the reason urged by the gov err rment as guiding the companys for nation, it's acquisition of an interest in the refining industry of the Pacific coast through the Western Sugar Refining com pany, it's purchase of Philadelphia re- fineries including the Segal refinery, it's investment in the National Sugar Refin- ing eompanv and in various beet sugar companies, the so-called "custom frauds" and it's conduct in regard to the prices OF refined sugar and It's attitude toward competition.
 Monopoly Denied
 The answer denies that the American Sugar Refining company in January, 1891, or at any. other time has been a monopoly in restraint of trade, or that in January, 1891, the corporation ac- qnired 90 per cent of the entire sugar business of the United States It ayers that prior to March, 1892. the company carried on not to exceed 65 per cent of the business.
 Denial als is made that the business of the company for many years has equaied or approached 90 per cent. The company, it says, refines lot to exceed 40 per cent of the total amount of re- fined or manufactured sugar produced in this country.
 | Continuing the answer declares that l since the organization of the American 1 company competition in the manufac | ture of refined sugar has been open l and free and that the total output of the company has not increased in the past ten years.
 The answer then sets forth at con- siderable length the reasons for form ing the American Sugar Refining com pany.
 Customs Frauds"
 Continuing the question of the all leged custom frauds Is treated very Iful'y. The answer denies that in or |d,s. tc enrich themselves or 10 destroy |comp stition the defendant companies or their ,tficers secured entry of their i'm ports a weights below the real weight pr that h.ey defrauded the government but O. any s,-als of money.
 The defendant admit, however, that |prior 10 the veal 1907 certain employees of a single refh cry of the American company for the purpose of making a more favorable sh lwing of the business of this refinery dit without the knowl- edge of any respoh sible officer of the bompany, cause the government to be iefrauded out of considerable sums of money.
 When these practices w.~e discovered . 90T the American compal.~ at once -epudiat ted them and placed all sNe in ormation it had concerning these On, elrrences at the disposal of the fed sral government. The amount lost to he government through these prac-
 ices was s2000.00o. which sum was Subsequently, paid to the government.