New-York tribune., 1909-12-18
STANDARD APPEAL
FILED IN ST, LOUIS.
Asserted That No Violation of
Sherman Act Vas ,Shoscn.

ST Louis, Dec. 1.-THE appeal of the
Standard OF Company OF New Jersey. its
suhsidiaries and the seven individuals
AGAINST whom the government recently won
its dissolution suit in the United States
circuit Court was flied here to-day
Sixty-ive instances in which the Circuit
Court is alleged to have erred are cited as
reasons for taking the case TO the Supreme
Court of the United States The appeal
was accompanied by bond of $4,000.
collectively the assignments of error are
that the evidence did not show violation
Of the Sherman act, under which the suit
was brought.
Specific objection is also made as TO the
everything OF the plea against the juris
6iction Of the court.
The findings in respect to competition as
between corporations occupying contiguous
territory are also declared 10 have been
~ error as well as the courts conclusions
regarding the part which John n. Rookie
felIer. Henry H. Rogers, John D. Archbold
and the other individual defendants took
IN the formation and conduct of the vari-
Gus companies
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.
The assignments as set out are:
]. There vas error in the denial of de-
fendant's motion 10 set aside the courts
order permitting the service of summons
on nonresident defendants.
2 in the overruling OF the plea &c the
jurisdiction Of the court.
8 IN the decision that many of the nine
teen corporations, majority of the stock
Of which was in 1889 owned by the stock
holders OF the Standard Company of New
Jersey. We're naturally competitive
to 1873 John D. Rockefeller William Rookie
feller. Henry II. Rogers, Henry NJ. Flag
ler John y. ATchbold, Oliver H. PAYNE and
Charles II. Pratt had acquired control of
any corporation that had been in competi-
tion; that they had placed a majority OF
ests in property and business thus obtained
in various trustees; that they had thereby
suppressed competition; that from 1879 TO
1892, they prevented such corporations and
others from competing, by causing a ma
iorfty. OF their stock TO be held in trust for
stockholders OF the Standard Oil Company
Of Ohio: that from 1892 TO 1899 they accom-
plished The same result by the Joint eQuita-
De ownership OF majority OF the stock;
that in 1893 they caused a majority of the
stock Of the said nineteen corporations 10
be transferred TO the Standard Oil Com
p6ny Of New Jersey IN exchange for it's
stock. 50 that the latter acquired legal
power 70 fix rates Of transportation, pur-
8 In finding that the Standard Oil Com
psIy o. New Jersey has since 1899 pre-
vented competition, because for many
years prlSE TO 1893 the corporations had
been held in the same common ownership
IS component parts Of the business and
they under any obligations 10 compete with
d In finding that II the necessary
effect Of { contract is 10 restrict free COM
petition, Il is violation of the Sherman
: In finding that the exchange of stock
of competitive corporations, the effect of
which Is 20 restrict competition. consti-
rutes & combination in restraint Of COM
s In finding that the Standard Oil Com
raIy Of Chic acquired other corporations
BY exchange Of stock, II such finding be
Of
sition we're exclusive, because many were
bought for cash.
Ohio. IN 1892, decided the trust Of 1852
tended 70 create 4 monopoly.
~ In finding that the method OF dissO-
iUtlou Cf the sO-called trust Of 1882 was
adopted TO deter many holders of trust
certificates from surrendering them and
acceu-tuE shares OF stock or to enable in
diriduaI defendants and their associates TO
secure control Of all companies.
i. n finding that when the Standard
OIL Company Of New Jersey, in 1899, ac-
CURED The stock Of nineteen companies it
succeeded 10 the legal title 10 a majority
q 2ek he Il sgea sd1 han nqng gtaf eaFS n c9nired Sng
al shares OF each Of the nineteen com
panies except the Northwestern Ohio
- In finding that between 1899 and 1905
the affairs of the so-called subsidiary COM
paries had been managed by the New Jer-
sev company as the business OF a single
2erson. the fact being THAI while there was
cooperation for economical and efficient
manage by its officers and directors,
. IN finding that among the companies
controlled by the New Jersey company
there are six marketing companies which
had 9574 selling stations.
4 In finding that the Standard Oil Com
pauy Of New Jersey has acquired q COM
nandsng volume OF the trade by means
4 In finding that the seven individual
defendants combined to suppress compeu-
15 In finding that the exchange of stock
for interests in a single corporation is
In finding that corporations are legal
entities distinct from stockholders.
Assignments IS TO "a argue that the Sher-
u7zu act does not diferentiate between
various forms Of competition. and that the
cCurt erred in finding that the transfer Of
stock IN the nineteen companies 10 the
Standard oil Company of New Jersey in
-ased is power To prevent competition or
vested in The larger company the control OF
the so-called potentially competitive" cor
po-atons.
20 RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
The next nine assignments deny the
courts accuracy in finding that the transfer
resulted in q combination and conspiracy in
restraint Of trade, that the Standard OIL
Ccrranv of New Jersey is dominated by
tho seven individual defendants. and that
the big corporation has since 1899 exercised
unlawful powers.
Error is also alleged in Ihe ruling that
holding company owning the stock of com
Tanies which otherwise would be competi-
tive s a form Of trust prohibited by the
Sherman act.
The document then turns to the court
reference to the Northern Securities case
snd in TWO assignments alleges error was
committed in deciding that the case was
ruled by the older decision.
The attitude Of the rulings in regard 20
the defendant subsidiary companies Is next
attacked. error being asserted in the md
ings Is 70 their relations with the Standard
Of New Jersey. The existence Of con-
spirscy in restraint Of trade is denied.
Assignment No. ~ alleges error in the
finding that the Standard Gil Company or
New Jersey issued stock in excess OF $780,
0f.of0 I'm exchange for the stock Of other
companies.
Criticism Of the decree oegIn5 in assign
nelt 10. 4s The court cnjCined the New
Jersey company from voting the stock OF
subsidiary concerns the smaller companies
from paying dividends TO the larger the
Individual defendants from continuing the
combination which it found TO exist or the
formation by them Of any similar arrange