The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-11-24
OIL TRUST ASKS
FOR NO AME ENDMENT
Pending Appeal, VIII Keep Oh
Doing Business Under Anti
Trust Law.
C0MPANY'S HEAD COUNSEL,
MAKES HIS EXPLANATION
Says There Is No Cause for Mar
ket Spectators to Fear
Any Trouble.

NEW YORK, Nov. 23-The Stan.
daro oll company announced autbori-
tatYely today that it had no intention
OF seeking an amendment to the Sbcr.
man antitrust law, but will proceed
with the appeal to tho United States
supreme court from the decree of the
United States circuit court at ST. Paul
Until the supreme court has rendered
a decision, tho company will consider
no other plan of doing business than
the methods now in use.
Mortimer f. Elliott. general solic.
itor Of the company, is authority for
tbe foregoing. He discussed the case
with representative Of the Associ.
atcd Press. after conference with
William Rockefeller and John d. Arch.
bold
Official Statement.
There is TO be no effort on the
part of the company 10 procure an
amendment TO the Sherman antitrust
law" said Mr. Elliott. 1--WE shall
await the verdict of the supreme court
before VIC take any steps looking either
toward reorganization, on new state
meut of our case ia the public. The
conrt has first rights.
cit seems highly improbable TO me
that there Will ever be a foreign hold
ing company organized. as YOU tell me
has been suggested. Tho complexity
Of control exercised by the several
states sets too mauy difficulties in the
way.
Comment on Comment.
Such comment on the case as have
seen misses the. fact that The STANDARD
OIL company is not a holding company.
pure and simple. as was the Northern
Securities company. For instance. il
owns outright mt Bayonpc. ~. j.. the
largest refinery In the world. There j.
nothing in the decree to prevent the
,cnmpapr from coF55BRiug IS % fRsi,
mess aifhngSn J ati1nit thai it mahes do,
ing BUSINESS moro cumbersome
Although the decree cnioius the
Standard Oil company from voting its
sbareholdiugs in subsidiary companies
or receiving dividends from them, there
is no reason why the individual holder.
among whom such shares would be di-
vided uudcr the decree. should not elect
their own officers in the subsidiary com
panies and receive their Own dividends
from those companies a proxy sys-
ten among our 1000 shareholders would
certainly be no more unmauagea bic than
the same system as now used by rail
road and industrial companies with,
say 10000 shareholders.
No Cause for Fear.
''In brief. there is no cause for the
market 10 fear forced liquidation OF
the securities the Standard Oil company
nor holds. 7 disagree with the gcute-
men who think redistribution is nee
cssary. other tbap Of the sort [ outlined
in my first statement.
Mr. Elliott. in that statement, said
be understood the court TO order that
Standard OIL company holdings in sub.
sdiary companies be spportioncd
among Standard Oil company share
owners in ratio of their holdings in the
parent company.
An executive officer of the company
said today that no alarm was felt over
the possibility of a criminal prosccu-
tion under section of Cbc Sherman
anti thrust act, should the present decree
in equity be upheld in the supreme
court.