Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1908-11-21

J. B. FORAKER.
Cleveland. o.. Oct. 6. 1908.
Hon. Joseph b. Foraker, Cincinnati.
Ohio
In December, 1895. at the time
you were employed by me there was
pending against the Standard oil
Company in the Supreme Court of
the State OF Ohio very serious and
difficult litigation. a proceeding In
contempt had been instituted by the
Acknowledgement charging that com
pany with having wilfully violated
the order of the Supreme Court di
recting it 20 withdraw from the trust
agreement. The company had an
swered. issues had been made up and
considerable volume OF testimony
taken.
There was also pending against the
Buckeye Pipe Line Company a pro-
/ ceeding in quo warranto, charging il
with being a member Of a trust in
violation Of the antitrust laws of the
State; also a like proceeding against
the Ohio Oil Company and the Solar
I refining Company. and one OF a like
character, at that time L think.
threatened against the Standard oil
Company of Ohio ard which was
brought I'm January, 1898. These
were so-called constituent compan-
les OF the Stand ard OIL Trust.
These bills in quo warranto were
all filed i'm the Supreme Court and
/ asked for the revocation OF the char
ters of the said several corporations,
The appointment of receivers to take
possession of the properties. and the
dissolution Of the various companies.
Many millions of dollars Of property
were thus involved in the litigation
already pending. and much imperilled
I'm addition 10 other litigation threat
ened.
It was in the midst of these diff
cult cases. with the very serious con-
sequences incident TO any adverse de-
cision. that with the approval Of my
client I turned TO you for assistance
and advice.
The Standard oil Company of Ohio
had endeavoled in good faith 10 COM
ply with the order Of the Supreme
Court. The trust certificate holders
had by a resolution passed at a meet
ing held I'm New York in March. 1892.
determined not only that the stand
ard oil Company OF Ohio should
withdraw from the sO-Callod trust a.
groement but that the trust itself
should be dissolved. and the trustees
had entered I'm good faith upon the
policy of a dissolution and a winding
up of the entire trust
Many practical difficulties present
cd themselves. as the trust Ccrtih-
Gates. of par value of more than
$97. 100000 were held cverywhcro
throughout the country. had been In
vested I'm by savings banks and trust
g. q. q a 20.
hand in the market for ten years,
We're held in large and small amounts
and the effort TO give the trust GER
tifcate holders a legal interest in the
stock OF the various companies that
had formerly been In the trust, was
one OF great difficulty.
10 was upon a realization OF these
serious and disastrous consequences,
woll-kuowing your ability as an at
toruey. and the respect lawyers and
courts had for YOU throughout the
state. that I sought your service
Your Judgment was sought not only
as 90 what had been done 10y the
Standard OH Company OF Ohio In its
effort 90 withdraw from the trust. but
also as 90 what form OF future or
gauization OF the great interests OF
this company and of the constituent
companies should be taken that they
might not be open TO any further at
tack.
For more than year testimony
was taken az various places, fun
transcripts of that evidence furnished
you and suggestions received from
YOU as TO the lines upon which So
ought TO be met.
The testimony having been closed,
the contempt case was finally submit
ted 90 the Supreme Court. and In
December. 1900. an entry was made
by the court finding the defendant
not guilty OF contempt and dismissing
the proceedings.
a little later the four custer
cases were also dismissed. the dis
missal of the latter cases being made
by the Court at the suggestion Of
the then Acknowledgement. Judge
Sheets
Your employment extended over q
period of more than two years, dur
ing which time / was repeatedly in
consultation with you. and there was
no phase OF litigation Of which you
We're not fully abreast all the time,
and your counsel was fully appre-
ciated by my associate counsel and
by my client. and there never was a
particle OF effort upon our part to
conceal your relations to the inter
ests we represented.
So far from the attitude of the
company being one of a desire TO e.
wade the law or the decree of the
court. it had faithfully end eavored
20 comply Herewith. and so far as
the Valentine trust law was concern
ed we were not trying by subterfuge
or indirection, to evade IL. You un-I
derstood perfectly our desire and CO.
operated with 1t 10 put these large
properties on basis OF conformity to
the decree of the court and of the
law, that they might be safely and Sc
curely held by their owners.
Your efforts greatly contributed TO
the success of the litigation and the
preservation of the property by it's
owners. At the time of your en-
ployment and when it ceased, as i'll
did. according 10 my recollection,
somewhere about the first OF January
1901, there was no intimation from