Refining Company, through Kissel and his directors, took possession of the Pennsylvania's Philadelphia plant and caused a resolution to be passed to the effect that it should not be operated until the loan was paid. To support these charges the indictment presented copies of documents which appeared in the complaint in the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Company's suit for treble damages aggregating $30,000,000 against the American Sugar Refining Company which was settled in 1909 for $750,000 cash and the $1,250,000 loan.

That Kissel's connection with the matter did not end when the loan matured on January 4, 1905, was indicated by a letter to the American Sugar Refining Company enclosing a memorandum of expenses incurred by him in relation to the acquirement of control of the Pennsylvania Company's refinery, and running down to April 25, 1906. One of these items was a payment to Cravath, Henderson & de Gersdorff for "legal services in connection with loan." Harned, a Philadelphia lawyer, was Segal's counsel at the time the loan was negotiated and made.

As an exhibit the indictment contained a copy of a letter written by John E. Parsons to Charles R. Heike, secretary of the American Sugar Refining Company following the appearance of an advertisement by a bondholders' committee desiring the rehabilitation of the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Company, the Philadelphia refinery of which was still closed because of the loan. The letter read:

C. R. HEIKE, ESQ.

April 19, 1909..

Dear Sir: I will send the advertisement about the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Company bonds to Mr. Johnson. He has the matter in charge. With the bonds held by Mr. Kissel, I should think that we represented so considerable a holding as to make it undesirable to submit the bonds to the action of a probably hostile committee. Should any action be required, I will let you know. Yours truly,

JOHN E. PARSONS.

An earlier letter written by Mr. Parsons to Secretary Heike related to suits begun by Receiver Earle of the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Company, and of the Real

Estate Trust Company of Philadelphia, which went into a receiver's hands following the suicide of Frank Hipple, Segal's financial backer. This letter was as follows:

MR. C. R. HEIKE

Feb. 15, 1907.

Dear Sir: I am in receipt of yours of Feb. 14 inclosing a resolution passed by the Directors of the American Sugar Refining Company at their meeting on Feb. 13, 1907, for which accept my thanks.

For some reason not clear to me Mr. Earle has delayed proceedings. The Department of Justice ought to refuse, and I hope that it will refuse, to aid Mr. Earle's claims. Mr. Johnson describes the claim as "farcical." However this may be, I shall, both on the company's account and on my own, co-operate in defending any proceedings which may be taken by Mr. Earle. Very truly,

JOHN E. PARSONS.

During the pendency of the trial Senff and Kissel died and when on March 11, 1911, proceedings were commenced before Judge Learned Hand in the Criminal Branch of the United States District Court the defendant, Mayer, was too ill to appear and he was eliminated from the case. In the course of a few days United States Attorney Henry A. Wise, who was conducting the prosecution, found it necessary to use Harned as a witness. He first sought to have the indictment so far as it concerned Harned quashed but as the trial was then on by direction, the jury found a verdict of not guilty in his case. This action reduced the number of the defendants on trial to four men-Parsons, Thomas, Donner and Frazier.

During the trial which lasted three weeks the defence insisted that prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations, the loan having been made prior to July 1, 1906. This claim was strengthened by the exclusion of evidence as to acts committed in 1908. The jury after deliberating for thirteen and a half hours announced a disagreement at 1.30 a. m., March 31, 1912, and were discharged.

2.-United States v. Albia Box & Paper Company et al.

December 7, 1909, indictment returned in Southern District of New York charging combination in restraint of trade in paper board. Feb. 7,

1910, all defendants plead guilty and fines aggregating $57,000 were assessed.

Thirty-nine corporations and fifty-four individuals were named as defendants in the indictment. They were all members of the Paper Board Association, which had a total membership of 140, and which despite the prosecution of the Fibre & Manila Association, continued the Parks "pooling plan" system.

The indictment charged that the association agreement provided for the limitation of the output of each of the defendants' mills to an amount decided upon, the determination of prices, and for quarterly meetings at which arrangements for the next quarter were discussed, and explained that under the terms of the scheme a member could only exceed his allotted share of the total output when he was able to purchase from some other member a part of the latter's share not intended to be filled.

Each member of the association paid into the treasury of the combine in monthly instalments $8 a ton on all merchandise shipped during the preceding month, from which was deducted the expenses of the association and 25 cents per ton additional to be held as a contingent fund for the general purposes of the combination. The distribution of profits was made also monthly to the members according to the ratings upon which they were allowed to produce.

The indictment further charged that the "pooling" arrangement had the effect of hindering and restraining normal conditions in the paper board business and placed an unlawful tax upon the people of the United States in the form of abnormally high prices, amounting to $5,000,000 a year during the existence of the combine.

In support of this charge the indictment set up as evidence of overt acts the record of many meetings of the association. At one of these meetings, held on December 1, 1907, a financial statement for the year was submitted which showed "net pool profits" of $4,581,312.43. Certain additions incident to the pooling arrangement brought the profits up to

$4,835,652, upon which figure the Government based its estimate of $5,000,000.

On the understanding that the part of the indictment which specified individuals would be quashed James M. Beck, counsel for the Paper Board Association appeared before Judge Hough sitting in the Criminal Branch of the United States Circuit Court on February 7, 1910, and withdrawing the tentative pleas of not guilty for 39 corporations and firms entered pleas of guilty. Fines of $2,000 each were imposed and paid. The plea of the Chemical Paper Company, was not entered until December 14, 1910, and in the case of that defendant the fine was reduced to $1,000. It was paid.

3.-United States v. John S. Steers et al.

Indictment returned in Eastern District of Kentucky, February 17, 1910, charging conspiracy to restrain trade. This is the so-called "Night Rider" case, where the restraint consisted in preventing the shipment of tobacco in inter-State commerce by means of violence and intimidation. After the overruling of demurrers and various pleas in abatement a trial was had, and on April 16, 1910, a verdict of guilty was returned as to eight of twelve defendants and fines aggregating $3,500 imposed. Appealed to Circuit Court of Appeals, argued November, 1911, and awaiting decision. 4.-United States v. Imperial Window Glass Company et al.

Indictment found in Western Pennsylvania, April 7, 1910, charging combination and conspiracy to enhance the price of window glass. Demurrers to the indictment were overruled, and on November 10, 1910, pleas of nolo contendere were entered and fines aggregating $10,000 and costs were imposed.

The defendants were thirteen officers of the company, each of whom was a representative of a subordinate company bound up in the combine. They were charged with having made an agreement to sell to no one but the Imperial Company. The defendants asked the Department of Justice to consent to the entering of pleas of nolo contendere and the imposition of fines. This proposal Attorney-General Wickersham would not agree to, saying that he considered the trust as one of the most flagrant in its violations of the law. Within a day or two after this refusal the indicted windowglass men, measuring their chances with the court, entered

pleas of nolo contendere which were accepted. The company was fined $2,500 and the officials of the company $500 each. It was reported that the fines were afterwards assessed on the employees of the company.

5.-United States v. National Packing Company et al.

Indictment returned in Northern District of Illinois, March 2, 1910, charging combination to restrain trade in fresh meats. Demurrer to indictment sustained June 23, 1910.

George T. Buckingham of counsel for the defendants, in the course of the argument which he made in support of the demurrer asserted:

1-That the indictment does not go sufficiently into particulars.

2―That it does not charge a crime, nor cite facts constituting a crime. 3-That if there was a crime the statute of limitations (three years) had run against it.

4-That the indictment charges no interstate commerce transaction. 5-That no place in which the combination operated or had existence is alleged.

6-It is a combination which is illegal, not its acts.

The quashed indictment failed to show, in the view of Judge Kenesaw M. Landis, that any offence had been committed within three years, the period covered by the statute of limitations. It did not even show that within the same period of time the defendants had been engaged in interstate commerce. The general averment that the packing companies engaged in a combination in restraint of trade, Judge Landis explained, was a mere conclusion.

"The court is not clothed," he said, "with authority to supply entirely by inference the complete omission of so fundamental an element of the offence."

6.-United States v. National Packing Company et al.

Northern Illinois. Bill in equity charging combination in restraint of trade in fresh meats and praying for dissolution filed March 21, 1910.

On motion of United States Attorney Edwin W. Sims, following orders from Attorney-General Wickersham, Judge Kohlsaat sitting in the United States District Court at Chicago, dismissed the dissolution suit on December 27,