The Bellefontaine Republican. [volume] (Bellefontaine, Logan County, Ohio) 1855-1905, 1899-02-24
AN ARGUMENT
FOR The STANDARD OIL
COMPANY.
The False Prosecution That Is
Made of Its Case.
in ORDER TO DECEIVE THE
PEOPLE.

eSt L.
A number Of city papers in the State
have published articles, apparently as
editorials, defending the Standard Oil
Company and making it appear that
Mr.. Monnett, the Attorney General of
the State is prosecuting great company
that is beneiactor of the people at
large, and that employs thousands of
men, paying them good wages, and
helping all interests.
The latest article We have seen Of this
character, is from the pen of Mr.. E. O.
Lsmpson, and appeared first in a paper
In Ashtubula county. As his article is
being copied throughout the State, and
as it gives the line of argument ad-
vanced in other articles published in
defense of the Standard, we give Mr..
Lampson's article, or what We have seen
of it entire. Iii az follows:
II am taking for granted that my
readers are intelligent, reasonable and
unbiased in their judgment, and that no
one will consider 1t my purpose to
defend the Standard Oil Company of
OHIO in its failure to comply with the
1892 to separate itself from the Standard
to monopolize an industry. do not
even question the Attorney Generals
sense Of duty in attempting to dissolve
| av.A YrrSv m kv1k -
raise the question in your mind such as
this inveetigati0n has raised in my own
mind.
"In what regard would the State and
you or prosper by the forced dissolu-
ton OF great capital profitably employ
ed? Is 1t not dangerous to your and my
welfare to break up the oil industry into
ten thousand little warning operators
such ae exist in the coal mining indus
try? As it is by the elimenation OF
waste, by the saving of time and need
less operating expenses that crude oil il
more valuable and refined oil cheaper
what advantage can there be in goinl
back thirty years to expensive and in.
| adequate methods that made unrefned
oil cheap and the oil that we use 80 deal
in price and poor in quality?
l 4A0A0 10 Ou w 10 pIOQuCouS bAou6
ported, refined and marketed. Can /,
be done better, more cheaply, witt
greater equity to producer and consumer
by the expensive and unsatisfactory
methods in vogue in the bituminoui
coal industry? Gould another grea
corporation managed by such men al
the speculating Cudhays do as we'll BY
the public as the conservative Rocke.
fellers?
"Granting that the Standard Oil Com
pany has made mistakes, is it not today
the greatest and best corporate employees
of labor and money, and does it no
give the producer q wider and more
stable and the consumer better ant
cheaper products? Why must th'
Standard be destroyed? Is there any
reason, any justice in running it because
it is great and profitable corporation?
Its existence has benefited the Stat'
enormously and will continue to do 81
with increasing employ ment and wealth
and you and will be benefited will
better and more numerous products
But how could we profit by the Stand
ards dissolution? Now, suppose th'
Standard Oil Company of Ohio be dis
solved, its business ruined. Does no
this question stand utterly without thu
possibility of an intelligent answer? B.
whom, and what and how could O
would the oil business of Ohio be con
Quoted in q manner more satisfactory t.
labor, producer, capital and the publ
than by the Standard Oil Company
backed by thirty years of costly ex
perieuce?
EDWARD G. LAMPsoN."
After stating that he has no purpos
to defend the Standard Oil Company 70
refusing to obey the order of the Su
preme Court, Mr.. Lampson at once
begins defense of the Trust by askin
how any one would be benefited by il
dissolution. This shows that while b
believes the Trust is perhaps technical
wrong, that it is a benefactor of th
people, and should not be legislate
against.
He next charges Mr.. Monnett wit
attempting to dissolve and ruin th
company" This is an admission tbs
the Company will be ruined, if th
Trust is dissolved. This is an al
sumption for which there is no grount
and the charge against Mr. Mennett
without any foundation. The Legisl'
ture passed law against Trusts, in th
State, and the Supreme Court ordere
, the Standard Oil Company to withdra
, from the Standard Oil Trust. The Con
, pany said it had withdrawn from tt
Trust, but there was reliable evident
that this was not true. Mr.. Monnett
I the Attorney General of the State-thl
q is, he is the States attorney. Tt
{ Supreme Court appointed Mr.. Brint
r made, of Cleveland, to investigate tt
question, as to whether the Compan
had Withdrawn from the Trust, and M
) Monnett has appeared as the State
/, Attorney. The Supreme Oourt-n'
. Mr.. Monnett-has ordered these prt
/. ceedings, and neither the Court nor IL
4 Attorney General have been out of Il
| line of duty, and neither has sought
D ruin the Company, as Mr.. Lampso
charges. But they have and are 81
q deavoring to break down the Trua
q which is outlawed in this State.
D Mr.. Lampson makes the point tn
\ nobody would be bettered by breaki1
D down the Standard Oil Company; tn
it would divide up the oil business I'M