The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-10
STANDARD OIL BEFORE A JURY.
TRIAL UNDER OHIO ANTITRUST
Law OPENS AT FJNDLAY.

Prosecutor IN ODsuing Statement Declares
There Mas Never Been ANY Change
From the Purposes % the Original
on Trust--Jury Mostly Farmers.
FNDLAr, Ohio, Oct. s.-The trial Of the
standard OH Company, charged with oon-
suiracy IN restraint Of trade and a violation
Of the antitrust avs Of Ohio. opened TO-
day.
John d. Rockefeller. charged with the
same offence. wiIl have a separate trial
and the date for his trial has not yet been
set.
The case involves an interesting legal
point in Ohio. Probate Judge Banker
has ruled that a violation Of the Valentine
law constitutes a m-isdemeanor and mai
his court has jurisdiction. The attorneys
for the Standard assert that this 10 not
true and that the only way in which they
can be brought before the court Ia by indict-
ment. The Valentine law defines Q trust
as a combination Of capital, skill or acts
OF two or moro persons, firms, DO, to create
restriction in trade, In violation OF the act
defined conspiracy against trade, and
punishable by q fine OF from $50 to $500 or
imprisonment Of IRON six TO twelve months.
As to the evidence required to convict.
the statute says: 1T shall be sufficient to
prove thai q trust or combination as de-
fined herein Exists and that the defendants
belonged to IL or acted for or In connection
with it, without proving or producing a
article or agreement or any written tnstru-
ment at all. The character Of the trust or
combination alleged may be established by
proof OF It's general reputation as SUCH
The jury selected for the trial includes
seven farmers, ono grocer, one stock buyer
and three oil producers and dealers.
In the arraignment Prosecutor David
said:
THE State claims that Notwithstanding
the numerous makeshifts. and changes
made by these men from 1Ss2 until the date
Of the fling OF the information In this case,
John D. Rockefeller. William Rockefeller,
H. Il. Rogers, John D. Archbold and H. N.
Flagler nave continued fraudulently and
maliciously to maintain and operate q 30
called trust. monopoly or combination and
that the Standard OH Company OF Ohio
is a member OF that trust or monopoly or
combination.
John d. Rockefeller, William Rookie
! Teller, Henry NJ. Flagler, II. H. Rogers,
John d. Archbold n others have gathered
IN aDout w per CENT; OF Vio oaPtG@l, skIII
and property engaged in the oil business
in the United States.
These men with four others were made
trustees OF Standard Oil and voted all the
stock
Immediately upon the formation OF the
trust. Rockefeller and eight trustees issued
to the parties who bad formerly owned
separate companies Standard Oil certif-
Gates, retaining as such trustees manage
ment and control Of the stock and property
Of the trust.
Under this arrangement the Standard
Oil Company continued to operate until
1892, in which time they organised nine
teen companies, including the Standard
Oil Of Ohio. Ohio Oil Company, Buckeye
Pipe Line Company n Solar Refining
controlled and directed the policies Of each
Of them.
The total capitalization in 1892 was
slO2 COO .0CO, with t20.O00,O0O surplus. In
1892 Attorney-G General Watson OF Ohio be-
gan quo warranto proceedings against the
defendant, claiming that this trust agree
ment tended to create a monopoly. The
Supreme Court found Standard on to be
monopolistic and against public policy.
Immediately following this judgment
Rockefeller and others called a meeting anC
made new arrangements whereby holden
Of Standard Oil certificates were TO receive
in exchange therefore a certificate OF lega
title in each OF the small companies com.
posing the trust, among these being the
Ohio Oil Company, Buckeye Pipe Line Com.
psny and the Solar Refining Company.
The State expects to show that Rookie
Teller, Rogers, Archbold, Tilford, FlagleI
and others level intended b and neveI
did comply with or regard the order o.
the Supreme Court Of Ohio"
In reply to this charge by David. Virgi
P. Kline, whose statement closed the worI
Of the day. said in part:
The Standard IL controlled absolutely
by its stockholders. The agreement Of ISs:
was true. but a dissolution was provideC
for. andfoUrteen years before the Valentip,
law was passed the court dissolved tn,
combination. In the action in 1897 Il wa
shown that the company withdrew from
the trust and the courts decision at tina,
time is a v~indication Of Standard OIL"
The Standard only changed its coat &
wrong side out, was the rejoinder Of Georg,
Phelps to this statement.