United States. Congress. House. Special Committee.

American Sugar Refining Company, and others : hearings held before the Special Committee to Investigate the American Sugar Refining Company on June 12, 1911-January 16, 1912 online

. (page 66 of 74)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Special CommitteeAmerican Sugar Refining Company, and others : hearings held before the Special Committee to Investigate the American Sugar Refining Company on June 12, 1911-January 16, 1912 → online text (page 66 of 74)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Mr. Fuller. Do you not know that at or about the time you sent
these letters you had a conference with me in New York about this
transaction ?

Mr. Stetson. Yes; I had.

The Chairman. Well, right there. Was that conference before or
after you sent these letters ?

Mr. Stetson. Yes; I am under the impression that it was in
January — this last January — I may be mistaken.

The Chairman. Did you ever have a conference with these attor-
neys before you sent these letters ? I am not trying to fix the exact
date, but just the priority. Did you confer with the attorneys
before you sent the letters or after 1

Mr. Stetson. Not until after. I think I am correct in that.

Mr. Fuller. The point I am trying to bring out is this: That he

knew at the time he sent these letters, or at or about the date of

sending these letters, that we were engaged on the preparation of

Mr. Thomas's defense, and the reason he knew it was because he


came over to New York, after sending these letters, to discuss the
letters with me.

The Chairman. Yes ; but at the time he sent them to Mr. Thomas
he did not know; he did not know until after.

Mr. Fuller. I am asking now whether he knew we were preparing
the defense at the time he sent these letters.

Mr. Stetson. I did not.

The Chairman. He said he did not.

Mr. Fuller. The impression seems to have been gotten that the
letters were sent from a desire to suppress evidence, when it is quite
the contrary.

Mr. Stetson. Well, they were not.

Mr. Fuller. The sending of the letters was merely to enable
this man to prepare his defense ?

Mr. Stetson. That is true; absolutely true.

Mr. Fuller. I do not wish to repeat questions, but I am not
right sure whether this has been brought out, as to whether or not
Mi. Stetson has ever been subpoenaed or called upon by the district
attorney, or anyone else connected with the Department of Justice,
about any of these letters ?

Mr. Stetson. I have not; no, sir.

Mr. Fuller. You have not been subpoenaed by the Government ?

Mr. Stetson. No; this is my first

Mr. Fuller (interposing). This is your first experience on the
stand and, of course, you have never been before the grand jury ?

Mr. Stetson. No; not in this case.

Mr. Fuller. In response to a question by Mr. Hinds you stated
that Mr. Segal had been engaged in various promotions. Did you
ever hear of the Atlantic Match Co. ?

Mr. Stetson. I do not remember that I ever have.

Mr. Fuller. The American-Swedish Crucible Co. ?

Mr. Stetson. I do not know that I have.

Mr. Fuller. The American Tissue Paper Co.?

Mr. Stetson. I have heard that he promoted a paper company,
but I do not know it by name.

Mr. Fuller. The Bell Ice Co. ?

Mr. Stetson. I do not know that I have.

Mr. Fuller. The United States Refining Co. ?

Mr. Stetson. That was in Camden; yes, sir.

Mr. Fuller. He promoted that ?

The Chairman. Well, he has testified to that.

Mr. Fuller. The Champion Construction Co. ?

Mr. Stetson. I never heard of it.

Mr. Fuller. The Champion Iron and Separating Co. 1

Mr. Stetson. Does that refer to Chickies ?

Mr. Fuller. Yes.

Mr. Stetson. I heard of that as being at Chickies, but I never
knew the name.

The Chairman. That is the concern you were testifying about ?

Mr. Stetson. Yes.

Mr. Fuller. The Commercial Constructing Co. ?

Mr. Stetson. I never heard of it.

Mr. Fuller. The Hamilton Ice Co. ?

Mr. Stetson. I never heard of it.


Mr. FuiLEE. The Hub Brewing Co., of Boston?

Mr. Stetson. No, sir.

Mr. FtnLLER. The International Match Co. ?

Mr. Stetson. Never.

Mr. Fxn.LEE. The Knickerbocker Contracting Co. 1

Mr. Stetson. I never heard of it.

Mr. Fuller. The Louisville & Atlantic Kailroad Co. ?

Mr. Stetson. I never heard of it; I never heard of any of these.

Mr. Garrett. What is the object of this ?

Mr. Fuller. My object is simply this, to see how many of the com-
panies which Mr. Segal promoted this witness can testify he has heard
of that Mr. Segal did promote, in order to amplify the question that
Mr. Hinds asked of the witness ; that is, whether or not this man was a
promoter and whether or not the man had promoted various concerns.

The Chairman. Did you mention all you knew of in your testi-

Mr. Stetson. All that I knew of, except the Chickies Iron Co., and
there was a paper warehouse operated in Virginia, the Majestic Apart-
ment House and the Sugar Refining Co.; that is all I have known of,

Mr. Fuller. I am not reading a list of buildings which this man

constructed, but I am reading a list of enterprises that he has caused

-to be incorporated or has bought after they were incorporated and

has increased and has promoted by selling their bonds and stocks or

their bonds or stocks.

Mr. Garrett. Can you suggest how that would help this committee
in its labors — to know all of those facts ?

Mr. Fuller. It is only pertinent if the question of Mr. Hinds is
' pertinent.

Mr. Hinds. Well, is the object of that to show or create the pre-
sumption that because he promoted many companies that, therefore,
the promotion of one company against the Sugar Trust might not be
an attempt to make a strike at the trust or hold them up ?

Mr. Fuller. No; the object is to show this man's course of dealing
and thereby to throw light on the buying in of the Pennsylvania Sugar
Refining Company and then putting this enormous capital in it and
then promoting it; to show it was the habit of the man to promote
various industries of various kinds, consisting of various sugar and
ice factories, and then selling them. That was my object; I thought
that was what your questions brought out.

Mr. Hinds. I see. I only know of that one case.

The Chairman. Do you know of any more things which he pro-
moted besides those that he has mentioned ?

Mr. Stetson. No, sir; that is, including the soap and match com-

Mr. Fuller. May I not, by the recalling of a name, refresh the
witness's recollection ?

The Chairman. The committee does not think that is necessary;
it is almost irrelevant, if not entirely so. We do not want to take up
too much time with it. You do not know of any more except those
you have mentioned ?

Mr. Stetson. No; I do not.

Mr. Malby. There are just one or two more questions. Have you
the letter books now from which you extracted the letters which you
sent to Mr. Thomas ?


Mr. Stetson. I think I have some of them, but not all.

Mr. Malby. Well, you say they were sent in the latter part of 1910 ?

Mr. Stetson. Well, some were sent in 1910.

Mr. Malby. When were the others sent ?

Mr. Stetson. Now, then, that will stand an explanation. I had
a partner for 31 years and we dissolved partnership — —

Mr. Malby (interposing) . When %

Mr. Stetson. Two years ago last October.

Mr. Malby. Give Ms name while you are at it.

Mr. Stetson. Mr. Robert J. Winsmore.

Mr. Malby. Where does he now reside ?

Mr. Stetson. 1911 North Broad Street, Philadelphia.

Mr. Malby. Go on from there.

Mr. Stetson. The old firm's books, the firm of Stetson and Wins-
more, so filled up our safes that everything was taken out up to about
1905 or 1906 and destroyed, all the ledgers, journals, and so forth,
and I only have books, I think, for five, six, or seven years back.

Mr. Malby. When was it you sent the first batch of letters to Mr.
Thomas %

Mr. Stetson. The first batch of letters in December, 1910.

Mr. Malby. In December, 1910 ?

Mr. Stetson. Yes.

Mr. Malby. So you did not send any that had been destroyed prior
to that time, because you did not have them?

Mr. Stetson. Oh, no.

Mr. Malby. Now, you have the letter books from which you took
the letters that you sent to Mr. Thomas ?

Mr. Stetson. No; I have not. I do not think I have.

Mr. Malby. I do not understand you, then.

Mr. Stetson. I think I have

Mr. Malby (interposing) . You say you destroyed your letter books
up to 1905 %

Mr. Stetson. I destroyed all of the firm's old books, not the letter

Mr. Malby. Well, up to what date ?

Mr. Stetson. Well, i think up to-

Mr. Malby (iaterposing) . When were they destroyed ?

Mr. Stetson. I should think up to within 1905 or 1906, but I will
look over them when I go home.

Mr. Malby. Your impression is that the firm's books up to 1905
or 1906 were destroyed?

Mr. Stetson. I think so; yes, sir; they may not be that late, it
may be only up to 1902 or 1903. I could tell by looking at my books
there now, which I am perfectly willing to do, and to show you
what it is.

Mr. Malby. Now, I understood you to say something about the
fact that the letters which you wrote to Mr. Thomas were regarded
as somewhat personal?

Mr. Stetson. They were personal.

Mr. Malby. I understood you to say upon your direct examina-
tion that these were copied into another book and not into the
firm's books ?

Mr. Stetson. Oh, no; they were copied in the firm's letter books.

Mr. Malby. Now, when were tliose letters written to Mr. Thomas —
during what period of time?


Mr. Stetson. Well, during a period from 1896 up to the present

Mr. Malby. What was the date of your communicating to Mr.
Thomas that you had copies of those letters and that you thought
they might be of advantage to him ?

Mr. Stetson. Some date in December.

Mr. Malby. Last?

Mr. Stetson. Yes; last December.

Mr. Malby. So that you had not destroyed at that time any of
the books from which you extracted letters which were sent to him ?

Mr. Stetson. Oh, I destroyed these books in — these books were
sent out and destroyed when my partner and I separated in 1909.

Mr. Malby. If you did not send these letters to Mr. Thomas until
1910 you could not have destroyed the copy books in 1905 from which
those letters were extracted ?

Mr. Stetson. I have those. And Mr. Fuller says he will show you
that he has letters of 1896 and of 1903, and he can show you he
has copies of those letters that I have taken from those books.

Mr. Malby. But you have the letter books from which you took
the letters that you sent to Mr. Thomas in December, 1910, have
you not ?

Mr. Stetson. From which I have taken letters.

The Chairman. As late as 1910?

Mr. Stetson. Certainly. I have all of my letter books from 1908
to 1910; 1908, 1909, and 1910, I am sure.

Mr. Malby. Prior to December, 1910, you did not send any letters
to Mr. Thomas, or copies of letters ?

Mr. Stetson. I never sent any more letters to Mr. Thomas until
December, 1910.

Mr. Malby. And you have those letter books now ?

Mr. Stetson. Yes; I presume I have the letter books anyhow
from 1907 up to this time; I know I have.

Mr. Malby. You must have had them in December, 1910, or you
did not send them to him at that time.

Mr. Stetson. I no doubt had them from 1907; I think I have.

Mr. Malby. I think we have now gotten over that hard spot. So
that the letter books from which these copies were extracted would
now show by the pages

Mr. Stetson (interposing). Certainly they would.

Mr. Malby (continuing). Those which have been removed?

Mr. Stetson. Certainly they would.

Mr. Malby. And the number of letters removed ?

Mr. Stetson. Certainly they would, any letter books I have.

Mr. Malby. Did you ever extract copies of any letters written to
any other person and return such copies to them ?

Mr. Stetson. Never in my life.

Mr. Malby. So that whatever jour letter books show now as to the
number would be the number which you sent to Mr. Thomas ?

Mr. Stetson. Certainly.

Mr. Malby. And none other ?

Mr. Stetson. Certainly.

Mr. Malby. That is all, except I would like to suggest to the chair-
man that there may be a possibility of our wanting to see those letter


The Chairman. Suppose you send those letter books. Of course
we can not require you to do so unless we serve you with a subpoena
duces tecum.

Mr. Stetson. You do not have to subpoena me, Mr. Hardwick. I
will look over what I have and I will be glad to forward them to you
if you wish. But I do not think I have but one letter book intact,
and that book contains a letter to Mr. Thomas, written in July, 1909,
and the way I came to have that letter in that letter book is that the
letter book was in my attorney's hands, as he was using it in a law-
suit; that is the only letter book I have. Do I understand you are
through with me ; and do you want those letter books ?

Mr. Malby. We would like to have you send them, if you will, by
express to the chairman, the letter books from which you extracted
the copies to send to Mr. Thomas and also the letter or letter book
which contains a copy of the only letter which you say you have not
as yet sent to Mr. Thomas.

Mr. Stetson. Now, I want to say to you, gentlemen, that you will
have difl&culty in knowing what page that was without you see these
copies, for the simple reason that here is my letter book, my regular
letter book, in which each and every letter that leaves our office is
copied; but letters of a social nature, which I considered my letters
to Mr. Thomas, were copied, as well as other letters of a social nature,
in the back of the firm's letter book, and while my business letters
were working forward all the time these letters were in the back.
For instance, I might have a letter, we will say, on page 600, and some
other letters would be within two or three pages of it that were written,
perhaps, in 1910, or along there.

Mr. Malby. If you ■will, you could put in a little slip.

Mr. Stetson. I can not tell where to put a slip without getting
those copies. I did not have them indexed because they were so few;
all of the other letters are indexed.

The Chairman. You will have to do the best you can.

Mr. Stetson. I will have to send the letter books to you, and all I
can say to you is that if you miss any of the pages in the book you
can imagine they are the letters I have torn out and sent to Mr.
Thomas, and you can verify that by receiving copies of letters from
Mr. Fuller.

The Chairman. We will do that, and we will excuse you.

Mr. Stetson. I am much obliged to you for your courtesy.


(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.)

The Chairman. Give us your full name ?

Mr. Harrison. My full name is Charles C. Harrison.

The Chairman. Your residence ?

Mr. Harrison. My legal residence is at Devon, Chester County, Pa.

The Chairman. You have a home in Philadelphia ?

Mr. Harrison. My winter home is in Philadelphia; I was born in

The Chairman. Mr. Harrison, what business are you now engaged

Mr. Harrison. At present I am not engaged in any business. In
1894, or shortly after my retirement from business, having been for


many years a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania, I was invited
by my cotrustees to become president of the University of Pennsyl-
sylvania. The title is provost, but it means the same thing as presi-
dent; I used the word president so you would understand.

The Chairman. You were the provost of the University of Penn-
sylvania ?

Mr. Harrison. Yes.

The Chairman. You retired, then, from active mercantile business
in 1894 ?

Mr. Harrison. In 1892; in March, 1892.

The Chairman. Since then you have engaged in no business ?

Mr. Harrison. Since then I have engaged in no business. Until
December 31, 1910, about six months ago, I had been the president
of the University of Pennsylvania.

The Chairman. Well, now, do you own any stock in the American
Sugar Refining Co. ?

Mr. Harrison. I am perfectly willing to answer that question, sir,
but I understood that Mr. Atkins was excused from answering it. I
am a holder of

The Chairman (interposing) . Mr. Atkins was not excused from

Mr. Harrison. I am a holder of stock in the American Sugar
Refining Co.

Mr. Hinds. Was not Mr. Atkins excused as to the extent of his
holdings ?

The Chairman. No, I think not.

Mr. Garrett. He was excused as to the extent.

The Chairman. Do you object to disclosiag the extent of your
holdings 1

Mr. Harrison. I would rather not say, sir, but I will say that I
am a moderate holder of the stock of the American Sugar Refining Co.

The Chairman. It may become very material later.

Mr. Harrison. Of course, I will submit myself to the committee,
sir, as the matter goes on.

The Chairman. Well, I will withhold asking that for the moment,
because I do not want to ask it unless there is some material reason
why we should have the information. Now, except to the extent
of being a stockholder, and, as you express it, a moderate stock-
holder, have you any interest in the sugar business ?

Mr. Harrison. None whatsoever.

The Chairman. That is your sole interest?

Mr. Harrison. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. Are you a director in the American Sugar Refin-
ing Co. ?

Mr. Harrison. No, sir.

The Chairman. Have you been ?

Mr. Harrison. Never, sir.

The Chairman. You never were ?

Mr. Harrison. No, sir.

The Chairman. For many years, Mr. Harrison, you were in the
sugar business, were you not ?

Mr. Harrison. I went into business on the 1st day of Januarv,
1863. •^'

The Chairman. In the sugar business ?


Mr. Harrison. Yes, sir; and never was in any other business.

The Chairman. Harrison, Frazier & Co. ?

Mr. Harrison. No, sir; Harrison, Newhall & Welch. That firm
was dissolved in the first year through the death of Mr. Newhall, and
a new partnership was formed in 1864, and that partnership was
Harrison & Havemeyer.

The Chairman. Which Havemeyer was that ?

Mr. Harrison. Mr. Theodore A. Havemeyer.

The Chairman. How long did that firm contuiuel

Mr. Harrison. Mr. Havemeyer retired from the business in. 1885
of his own volition.

The Chairman. Eetired from your business ?

Mr. Harrison. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. What did the firm then become ?

Mr. Harrison. Harrison, Frazier & Co.

The Chairman. It was a partnership, was it not, and not a cor-
poration ?

Mr. Harrison. A general partnership, consisting of four brothers
and Mr. Frazier, my brother-m-law.

The Chairman. Who were those four brothers ?

Mr. Harrison. I was the eldest; my brother Alfred C, was the
second; my brother William W. Harrison, the third, and my brother
Mr. Mitchell Harrison, the fourth.

The Chairman. The two last brothers were half brothers, were
they not ?

Mr. Harrison. No; Mitchell Harrison was my half brother and
William W. Frazier married my sister.

The Chairman. Who is Mr. George D. Frazier?

Mr. Harrison. Mr. George H. Frazier; he is the son of Mr. W. W.
Frazier, and a nephew of mine.

The Chairman. He is the gentleman about whom Mr. Stetson has
been testifying ?

Mr. HA.RRISON. I assume so; I did not hear much of his testimony.

The Chairman. Well, now, were these partners the only partners in
this concern ?

Mr. Harrison. The interests varied as the years went on. I have
no objection to telling you the interests if it would be essential.

The Chairman. Well, it might be at a later period, for this reason,
that I will want to know a little later exactly what each one of you
owns in stock.

Mr. Harrison. I will frankly answer every question. The only
thing is that this is a family concern, that every share of stock in the
company was owned in one family, that is so far as

The Chairman (interposing) . It was a close affair ?

Mr. Harrison. A purely family partnership.

The Chairman. Now, you say that in 1885 Mr. Theodore A. Have-
meyer retired from your firm ?

Mr. Harrison. Mr. Havemeyer wrote us a letter from Europe say-
ing it was his desire to retire from the business, and we made him an
offer of purchase and he accepted it and we bought him out.

The Chairman. Well, now, you operated from 1885

Mr. Harrison (interposing). From 1885 until 1887 we operated as
a general partnership under the firm name of Harrison, Frazier & Co.


The Chairman. What was the capacity of your plant ? Did you
have but one plant?

Mr. Harrison. Only one plant, sir.

The Chairman. And that was at Philadelphia ?
Mr. Harrison. That was in Philadelphia.

The Chairman. What was its daily capacity in pounds \

Mr. Harrison. I can tell you better about its capacity a little later
on, because I am speaking now as to matters of recollection of 20
years ago.

The Chairman. I know that.

Mr. Harrison. And I would hke to say, if I may be permitted to say
so, that I was a witness in 1892 in the case of the United States v.
Knight, and everything which I knew upon the question, when my
memory was fresh, is there. And I would hke to refer the committee
to that record for any matter upon which my mind may not be fresh

The Chairman. The only thing is I doubt whether the committee
can have access to the record in that case.

Mr. Harrison. There is a printed record of the evidence.

The Chairman. I do not know whether we can get it.

Mr. Harrison. Everything that I can tell you at this distant time
I am ready to tell.

The Chairman. What was the daily capacity ? Was the capacity
of this factory about 2,200,000 pounds a day ?

Mr. Harrison. In

The Chairman (interrupting). At the time they sold out to the
Sugar Refineries Co.

Mr. Harrison. I think we were the second largest refinery in the
world in 1888 and 1889.

The Chairman. What was the largest?

Mr. Harrison. Havemeyers & Elder, of New York.

The Chairman. That is according to the figures that appear in
this bill.

Mr. Harrison. I have not seen the bill. We had a capacity of a
thousand tons of raw sugar a day.

The Chairman. A thousand tons a day ?

Mr. Harrison. Yes; and we worked a thousand tons of raw sugar
a day right through the year.

The Chairman. That was your daily average ?

Mr. Harrison. We could do that work.

The Chairman. That was your daily capacity ? You could aver-
age that daily?

Mr. Harrison. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. Well, what did this plant cost your firm in actual
money ?

Mr. Harrison. To the best of my recollection and beUef, we ex-
pended upon that plant not less than $4,000,000.

The Chairman. Not less than ?4,000,000 ?

Mr. Harrison. That is my recollection.

The Chairman. Now, in 1887 Harrison, Frazier & Co. put this
plant into the trust or what was then called the Sugar Refineries Co. ?

Mr. Harrison. No, sir.

The Chairman. Or a httle after that ?


Mr. Harrison. No, sir. In 1887, when our business had grown to
such an extent and was constantly growing, we went into a corpora-
tion under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania.

The Chairman. You did?

Mr. Harrison. Yes, sir; and for this reason: Not to limit our Ua-
biUty, but for one purpose only — to enable us to readily settle the
estate of a deceased partner. We had been together almost 30
years, four brothers and a brother-in-law, and it would be a difficult
thing to settle up an estate in any other way, and after a conference
it was concluded to incorporate under the laws of the State of

The Chairman. And you were then incorporated ?

Mr. Harrison. Yes, sir; under the name of the Franklin Sugar
Refining Co., which always had been our brand from the beginning,
in 1863.

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Harrison, when you incorporated, at
what did you capitalize ?

Mr. Harrison. A capital of $5,000,000.

The Chairman. And jou had an investment of only 14,000,000 ?

Mr. Harrison. No, sir. I said we had expended from the begin-
ning to the end in our plant not less than $4,000,000.

The Chairman. Well, that is true; that is accurate. Now, what
was the other million that went into this $5,000,000, when you incor-
porated ?

Mr. Harrison. So you may understand it exactly, you asked me
what the plant cost the firm and I told you to the best of my knowl-
edge and belief $4,000,000, but we did not carry our plant at all at
that price upon our books, according to my recollection. No manu-
facturer is worth much except what he has outside of his plant, except
under extraordinary circumstances, so we kept our plant — at what
figure I do not now remember.

The Chairman. Lower than that ?

Mr. Harrison. Yes.

The Chairman. Much lower ?

Mr. Harrison. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. What was the balance of the $5,000,000 ?

Mr. Harrison. In cash.

The Chairman. The cash that you had outside of your plant ?

Mr. Harrison. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. So that of the $5,000,000, $2,500,000 of it at least
was represented by the plant ?

Mr. Harrison. I can not say.

Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Special CommitteeAmerican Sugar Refining Company, and others : hearings held before the Special Committee to Investigate the American Sugar Refining Company on June 12, 1911-January 16, 1912 → online text (page 66 of 74)