The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-12-18

The findings Ia respect to com petition ] as between corporations occupying con ! tiguouE territory are zlso declared 10 have Dsen in error zE well as the courts con clasions regarding the part which John ] D. Rockefeller. Henry H. Rogers. John D. Archooid and the other individual de- duet Of the various companies.
 The order granting the appeal was zignsd by Judges William C. Hook and Elmer E. Adams.
 Assignments of Error.
 The sssignrnsnIs are set out as follows: | There was eTror in the denial Of defendants motion to set aside the courts order permitting the service of sum- monses on non-rssident defendants.
 : h the oyerruling tO the plea Of the jurisdiction Of the court.
 2 In the decision that many Of the 19 corporations. a majority of the stock of which was in lsss owned by ths stock holders Of the Standard company of New Jersey, were naturally competitive. Tn finding that during the l6 years prior to I7s John D. Rockefeller. William Rockefeller. Henry H. Rogers. Henry M. l Fiagier, John b. Archbolo. Oliver H. Payne and Charles Nj. Pratt, had ac- l quired control of any corporation that had 1 been in competition. that they had placed a majority of the stock Of these corpora tons and interests in property and busi- ness thus obtained In various trustees; that they had thereby suppressed com petition; that from 1873 to 1892 they pre- vented such corporations and others from competing by causing a majority of their stock to be held in trust for stockholders of the Standard oil company of Ohio; that from 1892 to 1889 they accomplished the l same result by the joint equitable owner ship of majority of the stock: that in 15s9 they caused a majority Of the stock Of said i9 corporations to be transferred l to the Standard Oil company of New Jer- sey, in exchange for it's stock, go that the latter acquired legal title and power to fix rates. transportation, purchasing and selling price Of petroleum.
 Not Competitive.
 5 In finding that the Standard Oil com l pany of New Jersey has since L5ss pre- vented competition because for many l years prior to lsS the corporations had l been held in the same common ownership l as component parts Of one business, and were not competitive companies. nor wers they under obligations to compete with each other.
 g. In finding that if the necessary ef- | feet of contract fig to restrict free 1 competition it is violation Of the Gher- l man act
 | | In finding that the exchange of stock of competitive corporations. the effect of | which is to restrict competition, consti- futes a combination in restrain of com- 1 merce.
 s In finding that the Standard Oil com | pany of Ohio acquired other corporations | by exchange of Etock, if such finding be | construed to mean those methods of zc- | cuisition were exclusive. because many were bought for cash.
 g. Tn finding that the supreme court of | Ohio in Issz decided the trust of issz tended to create a monopoly.
 le. In finding that the method Of dfsso- l iutiOn of the so-caiied trust of Is<z was | adopted to deter many holders of trust l certificates from surrsndering them. and | accepting shares of stock or to enable in- diyidusl defendants and their associates to secure control Of all companies.
 Acquires Stock.
 Ii. In finding that when the Standard I Oil company Of New Jersey In 1sss &C., quired the stock Of # companies, it suc- ceeded to the legal title to q majority of the stock of such companies and the | finding means method of acquiring each | Of the 1s companies. except the North western Ohio Natural Gas company, was | participated in.
 F In finding between 1sss and 1s9s the l affairs of the so-cslisd subsidiary com paniss had been managed by the New Jersey company as the business of a sin
 
 was corporation for economical and efff- cient management each company was separately managed by its officers and di- | rectors
 1s In finding that among the companies controlled by the New Jersey company there are six marketing companies which | had z574 selling stations
 A. Tn finding that the Standard oil company of New Jersey has acquired a commanding volume of the trade by | means of trust.
 l5. This assignment was devoted to sup | pression of trade.
 1s. In finding the exchange of stock for interests fin q single corporation are fi- legal
 1T In finding that corporations are Iesa, entities distinct from stockholders.
 Transfer of Stock.
 Assignments 1e to H argue that the Sherman act does not differentizte be- tween various forms Of competition and adds that the court erred fin finding that the transfer of stock in the IS compan- les to the Standard Oil company Of New Jersey increased it's power to prevent | competiffon or vested fin the larger com pany the control of the so-called ''po- tentialIy competitive corporations" The l next nine assignments deny the courts accuracy in finding that the transfer re- suited fin a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade; that the Standard Oil company of New Jersey is domin. ated by the several defendants, and thai the big corporation has. since 1889. exer- l ciBed unlawful powers.