The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-06-25
CORN PRODUCTS co.
BANNED AS TRUST
Federal Judge Learned Hand
Orders Dissolution Of Com
binc in 100 Days.
LIKE HARVESTER CASE

The dissolution Of the so-callcd Corn
Products Trust as IAN illegal combina-
tiou which has shown an inveterate and
incorrigible insistence upon interfering
with the course OF commerce Is ordered
b. Judge Learned Hand Of the United
States District Court in a lengthy opin-
ION filed yesterday. The concerns in
voived are restrained from continuins
the practices by which they built up the
trade.
The corporations included in Juds,
Hands decision are the $sO,OOO,Ooo
Corn Products Refining Company, the
National starch Company. the Novelty
Candy Company and the ~. Louis Syrup
and Preserving Company. which. ac-
cording TO the Federal prosecutors. con
troll more than 80 per cent. OF the trade
In glucose. starch and their by-~products.
The sui, asking for the dissolution
under the sherman act was filed March
I. 1918 Special United states Attorneys
Van Sinderin Lindsey and Jesse {.
Akin sought to have the combination
dissolved on the ground that II was an
illega, combination In restraint OF
trade. The attorneys for the defence
~ere O'Brien. Boardman a P1att, James
n. Sheeau Of Chicago and Preston DAVE.
similar 20 uRrNrster Case.
Judge Hand holds that the case comes
within the scope OF the United states
Supreme Courts decision In the Inter
national Harvester case. and that some
form Of separation OF the component
parts Of the combination Is required
The suit Ia not punitive IN It's character, !
Judge HAND states. but the stockholders
are responsible for the conduct OF the
business by the officers In charge. Such
loss a. Is involved In removing from
their hands the power which they nav"
40 perststently used contrary to law Is
an Inevitable incident to the enforcement
Of tho statute.
Although leaving the details Of the
dissolution to the Trade Commission
Judge Hand suggests that the method OF
separating the interests con
cerned will follow the lines laid down In
the International Harvester case. except
tha the time within which the plan shall
be formulated and filed Is to be l20 days
instead OF 90 days. The Federal Trade
Commission In the case acts as a master
IN chancery. but must submit the pla
for the approval OF the United states
District Court, and Judge Hand promises
the defendants i've days notice before
approving the dissolution plans.
Judge Hands decree also contains an
Injunction prohibiting the defendants
from continuing the trade practices com-
planned OF hy the Government. which in
clude price fixing and other offences.
Purposes Of the Combine.
The opinion cites unreasonable prices
charged and the manipulation and fixing
Of prices as a part Of the campaign tn
get control Of the starch and glucose
Industry. II was also the purpose OF the
combination. the court says, 10 control
the syrup industry. Favorable freight
rates and transit privileges" extended
"a the defendants by the railroads were
heavy advantages" In the competition
with independent companies.
"The Corn Products Refining Com
pany's Industrial history has been char
actertsed throughout by attempts to
create sporadic competition" says Judge
Hand. W have the richest possible
evidence that they never meant TO main-
tain II as 4 policy. but only to drive
out weaker competitors to maintain the
held.
Its constant effort has been TO pre-.
vent competitors from demonstrating
whether they could manufacture as well
and as cheaply az itself. II has tried
throughout by its power temporarily TO
Affect commercial conditions 80 to OBJ
scure the actual Industrial facts as to
make impossible any test OF relative
strength. hat II has failed does not
change the past or make Its continued
existence in any sense less compromising
to the future. There Is every assurance
that Il will continue unfair trade meth
DDS unless It Is forcibly prevented"
In addition to the corporate defendants
named In the complaint were a number
Of Individual defendants who are for
the most part officers and directors OF
the Corn Products Refining Company.
n see no reason to exempt from the
Injunction the defendants Speyer, Board
man, Kelsey and Nichols. They were
all directors for three years before the
petition was dled and must be supposed
TO be privy to the general plans Of the
company. II they wish they may be ex-
eiuded from such parts OF the decree
- cover any trade practices which ter
minated before January l, 1910"