2 8, 237.91 28, 237. 91 | Enforcement of antitrust | Union Pacific case. laws. States attorney, New Steele, N. L.. Stimson, Henry L.. Special assistant to Strickland, R. T. do. Special assistant United $300 per month.. Compensation to be deter- 11,000.00 To assist in collection in certain old 127. 43 11,127. 43 Enforcement of antitrust United States v. Reading Co. and others. Statement of payments made to special assistants to the Attorney General and to United States district attorneys from March 5, 1909, to May 31, 1911-Con. Wilmer, L. A. The CHAIRMAN. Have you had any resignations from your department of Assistant Attorneys General since your service began? Mr. WICKERSHAM. Oh, yes; Mr. Charles W. Russell, who was Assistant Attorney General when I came in, resigned and is now the United States minister to Persia. Mr. Brown, who was Assistant Attorney General in charge of cases before the Spanish Treaty Claims Commission, went out of office with the completion of the work of that commission, about a year ago. Mr. Fowler resigned as Assistant Attorney General to become assistant to the Attorney General, a special post created and having particular relation to prosecutions under the antitrust law. I think those are the only resignations of Assistant Attorneys General that I recall. The CHAIRMAN. Have any of the gentlemen who have resigned resigned to go into private practice? Mr. WICKERSHAM. I should have added Mr. Wade H. Ellis, who was assistant to the Attorney General and who resigned a little over a year ago. The CHAIRMAN. Within your knowledge have any of these gentlemen who have resigned gone into the practice? Mr. WICKERSHAM. Yes, sir; Mr. Ellis is engaged in the practice. The CHAIRMAN. Have they since that time been connected in the capacity of attorney with any of the corporations, usually called trusts, against which the Government is prosecuting cases? Mr. WICKERSHAM. Not that I am aware of. The CHAIRMAN. At the time any of these assistants were appointed, any of these different attorneys, were any of them at that time engaged in the service of these large corporations? Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Bowers, who was appointed Solicitor General on the resignation of Mr. Hoyt, a month or two after I came into office, was general counsel for the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad Co. at the time of his appointment. I do not recall any others. The CHAIRMAN. Were any of them representing the beef packers or the sugar refiners or the Standard Oil Co. or the Tobacco Trust, or any of the so-called trusts? Mr. WICKERSHAM. None that I recall personally, Mr. Beall. The CHAIRMAN. I notice in the report of 1910, Mr. Attorney General, that your department has been examining into the question as to whether or not the Sugar Refining Co. was engaged in a monopoly of trade. I understand that there was some criminal prosecution begun against this company and against various parties connected with it. Mr. WICKERSHAM. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Has there been a final determination of those cases? Mr. WICKERSHAM. No. Well, there have been a great many criminal prosecutions made, not on the basis of the antitrust law. One criminal prosecution based on that act is still pending. The defense interposed a special plea of the statute of limitation. We went to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that was decided in favor of the Government and against the defendants some three months ago. The case still remains to be tried. The CHAIRMAN. I believe the Government carried up that appeal? Mr. WICKERSHAM. The district judge, Judge Holt, sustained the plea against the Government, the appeal resulted in a decision for the Government, based on what I think is a very fair construction of the antitrust law, but the main case is still pending and can not be tried, so the district attorney informs, until autumn. The CHAIRMAN. There has been no trial of the case against the American Sugar Refining Co. or the individuals indicted? Mr. WICKERSHAM. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Has there ever been any civil suit brought against the American Sugar Refining Co. under the antitrust law? Mr. WICKERSHAM. There is a very comprehensive suit under the antitrust law which was commenced about two months ago in the southern district of New York against the American Sugar Refining Co. and the eighty odd subsidiary companies and individuals, which is going forward as rapidly as those equity suits can be pushed. The CHAIRMAN. I believe the revelations in regard to the sugar frauds had begun before you assumed the office of Attorney General? Mr. WICKERSHAM. Well, yes; I suppose the beginning of those revelations were those involved in the trial of the suit to which I referred that resulted in a judgment for the Government of about $134,000 either the day or the day before I entered the office. The CHAIRMAN. And after that time the American Sugar Refining Co. paid about $2,000,000? Mr. WICKERSHAM. Yes, sir. Subsequent to that, one of the first things that was done after Mr. Stimson assumed the special employment was to institute a reliquidation of all the entries made by the American Sugar Refining Co. and that led to negotiations which resulted in the payment by the American Sugar Refining Co. of about $2,000,000, in addition to the judgment I have referred to, in full settlement of the civil liability of the American Sugar Refining Co. of New Jersey and that of New York for the underweighing of sugars imported at the port of New York. The CHAIRMAN. Did that $2,000,000 represent the loss of revenue that had occurred to the Government by reason of the underweighing in full? Mr. WICKERSHAM. It represented all that the attorneys, headed by Mr. Stimson, were able to advise me that they had any reasonable possibility of recovering. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know the amount of the importations by the American Sugar Refining Co. during the time that the frauds were being practiced? Mr. WICKERSHAM. No, sir; I can not tell you, Mr. Beall. The CHAIRMAN. Ordinarily, it is the policy of the department, where fraud of that kind is practiced, to attempt a forfeiture of the goods imported? Mr. WICKERSHAM. That is a matter which is regulated by the Treasury Department. It is usual when fraud is discovered at the time of the importation to enter a forfeiture, but, of course, in this particular case we were dealing with frauds on importations that had been made over a period of five or six years previously. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any law imposing any penalty in that character of case, aside from the collection of the revenue? Mr. WICKERSHAM. Yes, sir. I think it was because of the penalties in the law that we were able to compel this settlement with the sugar company. The CHAIRMAN. Were any of these penalties enforced against the American Sugar Refining Co., or did the Government simply collect the supposed difference in revenue? Mr. WICKERSHAM. The compromise really consisted in accepting the full amount estimated of possible loss of duties and in relinquishing the claim for penalties. The CHAIRMAN. Why was the claim for penalties relinquished? Mr. WICKERSHAM. Because the attorneys of the Government were not at all sure of collecting it. It was very much like every other matter which has grown out of long years of evasion of the law, complicated and difficult of proof, and it was thought on the whole that if this sum of $2,000,000 could be recovered at once, a bird in the hand was worth a flock flying. The CHAIRMAN. Did the Government have access to the books of the sugar company? Mr. WICKERSHAM. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Is it a fact that two sets of books were kept, one showing the weights as actually made for the purpose of the payment of the revenue and the other showing the actual weight? Mr. WICKERSHAM. My recollection is that it was not two sets of books, but memoranda which were kept, showing the accurate weight and the inaccurate weight. The CHAIRMAN. And the Government had access to those? The CHAIRMAN. Were they the memoranda of the sugar refining company? Mr. WICKERSHAM. They were the memoranda of some of the officials on the dock. Those memoranda were very significant, of course, and played a large figure in the conviction which was afterwards had of the officials of the company in the criminal prosecution. The CHAIRMAN. Would not the memoranda furnish a very accurate basis for the Government insisting upon the collection of the penalties? Mr. WICKERSHAM. Of course, it furnished the real basis which enabled us to collect the $2,000,000, but the recovery of the penalties was not felt to be sufficiently sure to justify overlooking the large settlement which was imminent and important for the hope of recovering the penalties. The CHAIRMAN. What penalty does the law provide in cases of that kind? Mr. WICKERSHAM. I can not recall the provisions of the statute; there are considerable penalties. The CHAIRMAN. You think it was the fear on the part of the Government to collect the penalties that induced the sugar company to effect the compromise? Mr. WICKERSHAM. I think that cut a figure. I would not say that was the entire reason, but that cut a considerable figure. There were a variety of reasons that combined. In the first place, there had been a change in the management of the company. Mr. Havemeyer, who had been the dominant factor for years, had died and I think some of the then managers of the company, were very anxious to relieve themselves of the odium of those prosecutions. The CHAIRMAN. In addition to the American Sugar Refining Co., I gather from your report that the National Sugar Co. and the Arbuckle Bros. also participated in that compromise? Mr. WICKERSHAM. No; not in that compromise. The CHAIRMAN. In a like compromise? Mr. WICKERSHAM. Yes; had with those companies. |