Los Angeles herald., 1909-12-18
OIL
TRUST APPEALS
OCTOPUS CITES 65 ALLEGED
COURT ERRORS
Federal Supreme Tribunal Will Next
Hear Case Involving Fate of Mo-
nopoIy Declared Illegal
Combine
Associated Pressl

Associated Pressl
ST. LOUIS, Dec. 17.--Attorneys for
the Standard Oil company of New Jer-
sey its subsidiaries and the seven in
ldividuals against whom the government
recently won its dissolution suit today
filed an appeal from the adverse de-
cision of the federal circuit court.
Sixty-five instances in which the
trial court is alleged to have erred
are cited as reasons for appealing to
the federal supreme court.
! Collectively, the assignments of error
are that the evidence did not show a
violation Of the Sherman antitrust
law.
The findings in respect to competi-
tion between corporations occupying
| contiguous territory are assailed, as
are also conclusions of the court re-
garding the part John D. Rockefeller,
II. IL. Rogers, John ID. Archbold and
other individual defendants took in the
formation and conduct of the various
companies. The order granting the ap-
peal was signed by Circuit Judges
Hook and Adams.
The assignments are:
First-There was error in the denial
of defendants motion to set aside the
courts order permitting the service of
summons on non-residents defendants,
and
Second-In ovetruiing the plea to the
! furiaAfgffnu - ha
Competitive Companies
Third-In the decision that many of
/ the nineteen corporations. a majority
.of the stock of which was, in 1899.
owned by stockholders of the Standard
OIL company of New Jersey. were
naturally competitive.
Fourth-In finding that in ten years
prior to 1879 John d. Rockefeller. Will
liam Rockefeller, Henry H. Rogers,
Henry NJ Flagler, John d. Archbold,
| Oliver II. Payne and Charles M. Pratt
had acquired control of any competing
corporation. that they had placed
ma jority of the stock OF these corpor-
ations and interests in business thus
obtained In various trustees; that they
had thereby suppressed competition;
llltl from 1919 10 1oJG ltley pT6N6nleu
such corporations and others from
competing by causing a majority of
their stock to be held i'm trust
for stockholders of the standard Oil
company of Ohio; that from 1892 to
1899 they accomplished the same result
by the joint equitable ownership of a
majority of the stock; that in 1899
they caused a majority of the stock
or said nineteen corporations to be
fNssara -fa rod fIa 10 Dr1 faAY1
pany of New Jersey, in exchange for
it's stock, so that the latter acquired
legal title and power to fix rates of
transportation, purchase and selling
price of petroleum.
Fifth-In finding that the Standard
Oil company of New Jersey has, since
1899. prevented competition because for
many years prior to 1899 the corpora
tions had been held in the same COM
mon ownership,
Not Violation2
Sixth--In finding that if the neces-
sary effect of a contract is to restrict
free competition II is a violation of
the Sherman act
Seventh-In finding that the eX-
change of stock of competitive cor
porations, the effect of which is to
restrict competition, constitutes a
combination in restraint of commerce.
Eighth-In finding that the Stan
dard Oil company of Ohio acquired
other corporations by exchange of
stock, if such findings be construed
to mean those methods of acquisition
were exclusive, because many were
bought for cash.
Ninth-In finding that the method
of dissolution of the so-called trust of
1882 was adopted to deter many hold
ers of trust certificates from surrend-
ering them and accepting shares of
stock or to enable individual defen-
dants and their associates to secure
control of all companies.
Tenth-7In finding that the supreme
court of Ohio in 1892 decided the trust
of 1882 tended to create a monopoly.
Eleventh-In finding that when the
Standard Oil company of New Jersey
in 1899 acquired the stock of nineteen
companies 1t succeeded to the legal
title to a majority of the stock, if
such finding means only a majority,
the fact being that it acquired all
shares of each of the nineteen COM
panies except the Northwestern Ohio
Natural Gas company.
Cooperative Work
Twelfth-In finding that between
1899 and 1906 affairs of the so-called
subsidiary companies had been man
aged by the New Jersey company as
the business of a single person. the
fact being that this was cooperation
for economical and efficient manage
ment, each company was separately
MANAGED by it's officers and directors.
Thirteenth--In finding that among
the companies controlled by the New
Jersey company there are six mar
keting companies which had S574 SELL
ing stations.
Fourteenth.--In finding that the
Continued on Page Two