The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1914-01-20
REAN[RS
CLAIM VICTORY

Il -" -
Claims That evidence Addncsd
at Hearings Of Equity Suit by
Government Did Not substan.
tiate Charges Of Monopoly.
-.---- s,a8 yiys
NEW YORK, January i7--(By A.
socfated Pfess usbis) That the Amer.
lean sugar Refining Company, tHe y.
called eneaf Trust has not, efeeied q
peaceful settlement Of is differences
with the United states govsrnhsnt, a
has been previously indicated, was
made known yesterday BY ths lssuHng
Of statement by the American eugkt
REFINING Company. The statsment II
addressed to the stockholdefs Of IND
company, II points ont that me evil
dence OF tho fovefnfient adduced a
the hear rgs Of the eqnity SUIT did rot
substantiate the governments claim
that q monopoly Of tho sugar ihtefest3
exists. 80 sis OK
As the decision of the court Is not
announced, what merit there IL In the
claim Of the American Sugar Refining
Company, of course, is not known. The
following New York and Washindto,,
dispatches Of Desember 81 were taken
to indicate that the fefnefs had reached
4 satisfactory agreement with the de.
pertinent Of tnstiee az that cline.
NEW YORK., = December 81. - That
the American Sugar Refining toinnany,
community referred toms tlie sugar
Trust has made IT'S peace'' with the
United States governments, and the de5
partfnent qf justice will anpounce. the
terms Of the settlement OH Friday next
is the Information received M New
York yesterday. on November 2g.
1910, an action was begun by the
United States government adaiiiss the
sugar company. for the alleged viola.
tion Of the Sherman ANTITRUST I .a hvsS;
Since the settlement made ~ fhe
American Telephone 4 TxIeerS6h Com
pany with the government, whereby
the telephone company arranged to dis.
pose Of its control Of the Western
Union Telegraph Company, Wan street
has heard many reports Of large corr
porations making settlements with the
government. TIE stock Of the Ameri:
can sugar Refining Company, which
about three weeits ago sold At COX
yesterday had recovered to 100 share
partly as o result ofsfepofts that the
company had taken steps to settle the
trust litigation in which IL was IN.
volved * #SH ~
Separation Of Important Properties.
WASHINGTON, December 3I.---Ind.?
cations tonight point 70 an early y lie.
mnnt out Of court ofgthe poverhm ent n
antitrust suit against the Ameficao
Sugar Refining Company aud 4 scors
Of allied concerns. 4; F2gla
The settlement. IL agreed Upon. woald
eau for q separation Of imnottant
properties constituting the so.cylI4f
trust including the Western Sugar
Beet interests. ~, Z,
The suit was filed In the federal cir.
cunt for the southern district Of New
York on November 49,. 1910. The suuar
companies interposed demurrers hut
after these wore disposed Of testimony
was taken. This task has been con.
chded, and the case await. Argnment
before that court. "a
Governments Allegations.
At the time the suit was filed il WINS
charged by the government that the
american Sugar Refining Company and
It's co-defendants controlled seventy.two
per cent Of the output Of refined sugar
not produced by the sugar beet con.
Germs. IL was alleged that the fac.
tories withinsthe combination were 10!
Gated throughout THE United States by
zones, and that i'm this manner they
were able TO crush all competition from
independents. The sugAr beet factories
allied with the combine, il was assert.
Ell, controlled sixty-four per cent Of the
total output Of beet.
In fact, the government asserted The
combine in 1909 controlled seventy per
cent of all the sugar produce,l III ina
country, both from cane and beets
That the Michigan Sugar Uompany
the Great Western Sugar Company the
Utah, Idaho Sugar Company. and Snreck.
els Sugar Company were eAeh ofpAne
lzed Tor the express purpose of monopo.
lizing the beet sugar business and de.
stroying competitions WINS the conten.
ton of the government.
nv lhuAfAuuhh doIen0antB named
were Washington b. Thomas, Arthur
Bonner, George IL. Frazier, Horace
hayemeyer Henry Il. Niese, Henry G.
Mott, Samuel Q. Hooker. Samuel Carr.
Edwin s. Martson, Edwin +. Atkins,
Charles. II. Alien, Joseph Il. Freeman,
William Harrison, Joseph +. smith and
Unfair Methods Charged. . n II
Unfair trade methods were charged
IL was alleged that brokers were forced
to handle trust products and discon.
thine business in the prodncts of indie
pendent concerns and that associations
of grocers were induced to sell their
products at standard prices to eonam.
ers, resulting in the suppression Of com.
petition. 4 < n X ~ VI t.s4 Z "a
The principal defendants In the case
are the American Sugar Refining Com.
pany Of New Jersey, with a capitalizas
ton, Of 10000, 900; the American su.
gar Refining Company Of New York,
$3,5o0,0oO; the Franklin Sugar Rein
ing Company Of Pennsylvania, $4,000
900; Spreckeis Sugar Refining Com.
pany Of PENNSYLVANIA. &5.oOO O0Os