Evening star., 1925-03-14
CHANGED OUTLOOK
ON TRUSTS SHOWN
Warren Case Debate Re-
veaIS How Public Mind Has
Altered in Attitude.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.


Entirely apart from the merits Of
the question of whether President
Coolidge should have sent to the SEN
ate a second time the name OF Charles
B. Warren to be Attorney General, the
debate has revealed some significant
changes in the way trusts" were
viewed nearly two decades ago. and
how the combinations and co-opera-
tive organizations Of today have been
accepted as matter of course.
Many people who have not taken the
time to study the intricate record that
has been built up in the debate over
Mr. Warrens nomination would be
surprised to learn from the letters
exchanged between Mr.. Warren and
the so-called sugar trust is what the
practice was in 1906 and therea bouts
and what II Is today.
Mr. Warren, as a lawyer of note,
had been interested in Michigan sugar
companies from 1902. During the
period thereafter. lasting until 1906,
he was counsel for II. o. Havemeyer,
head of the Sugar Refining Co,
frequently called trust. and finally
ordered by decree of the Federal
courts to refrain from entanglements
with other companies which would
bring about a monopoly In restraint
of trade.
Charge Against Warren,
The charge directly laid against Mr..
warren is that he quietly bought up
stock in the beet sugar companies IN
Michigan and that while he was doing
1t and obtaining control of them the
prices for sugar were being fixed by
the trust so as to force the smaller
companies into the bosom of the trust.
Mr.. Warren admits he was buying
up the stock, but says a number of
people knew 1t, including other stock
holders His opponents deny this.
Mr.. Warren insists that the Michigan
companies went to the trust" for aid
and rescue. The opposition says the
plan was devised by Mr.. Havemeyer.
In any event, when control oe the
Michigan companies was obtained,
central board was instituted at which
prices and methods of operation were
arranged in accordance with the
wishes of Mr.. Havemeyer, and fire.
quently Mr.. Warren was revealed in
letters to have been a spokesman for
the American Sugar Refining Co
Then came the famous Northern
Securities decision by the Supreme
Court of the United States on the
Sherman antitrust law and Mr. War
rem admitted, AS do other lawyers,
that the evolution of the courts de-
ctsion indicated that IL was unwise
for a company like the American
Sugar Refining Co. to appear to have
control in certain other companies.
Accordingly on Mr.. Warren's advice
the trust" reduced it's holdings in the
Michigan companies which had been
grouped under the name of Michigan
Sugar Co. and of which Mr.. Warren
WAS president. 1t reduced them to
about one-third of the stock Mr..
Warren contends that from 1906 on
he was simply president of his sugar
company and had no connection with
the American Sugar Refining Co.
Senator Cummlns, who made the
principal defense for Mr.. Warren, in
sisted that Mr.. Warren did what any
lawyer would do in acting either as
business agent or adviser in the
acquisition OF stock and the reorgani-
zation of companies. The opposing
Senators declared that he went be-
yond the bounds of a lawyer and
actually aided the trust in business
way. Senator Cummins, at the con-
clusion of his address, of his own
accord conceded that the only mis-
take he thought Mr.. Warren made
was in allowing his stock to remain
on the books of the American Sugar
Refining Co. until as late as 1911,
even though they were indorsed in
blank to the so-called trust"
Point Against Warren.
The Senator'S fighting Mr.. Warren
made quite a point of this and SEN
ator Reed of Missouri said he was
afraid Mr.. Warren, If confirmed as
Attorney General, might forget to do
other things and think he was still
the counsel for the sugar trust, sew
eral years after he was supposed to
have severed connections.
Senator Cummins pointed to the
way cooperation by the farmers and
consultations of railroads was being
urged nowadays as revealing a diff
ference in the public attitude toward
combinations, and said that he be-
lieved Mr.. Warren an honest man and
that was enough. The opposing Sem
ators said they were not questioning
Mr.. Warren's integrity, but his al
legged prejudices In favor of corpora
tions, and that Mr.. Coolidge ought not
name a man who had to make a de-
fense of his connections with q
trust" which had been the subject
of a successful suit by the Federal
Government itself.
(Copyright 1921