The Salt Lake herald-Republican. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1909-1918, 1909-11-24
Standard Oil Company Has No
Present Intention of Seeking
an Amendment to the Sher-
man Anti Trust Law.
INTERVIEW WITH THE
GENERAL SOLICITOR
improbable That a Foreign
Holding Company viii Be
Organized Owing to Com
pIexity of State Control.
MARKET NEED NOT FEAR

| New York. Nov. 23-The Standard OIL
company announced authoritatively to-
| day that it had no intention of seeking
| an amendment to the Sherman antitrust
| law, but will proceed with the appeal to
/ the United States supreme court from
the decree OF. the United States circuit
court at St Paul. Until the supreme
court has rendered a decision, the com
pany will consider no other plan of doing
business than the methods now in use.
Mortimer f. Elliott, general solicitor of
the company, is authority for the fore
| going. He discussed the case with a rep
resentative of the Associated Press after
a conference with William Rockefeller
and John D. Archbold.
Awaiting Final Decision.
There is to be no effort on the part
OF the company to procure an amendment
to the Sherman antitrust law" said Mr.
Elliott I'VE shall await the verdict of
the supreme court before We take any
steps looking either toward reorganiza-
ton or a new statement Of our case to
the public. The court has first rights.
1t seems highly improbable TO me that
there Will ever be a foreign holding COM
suggested. The cOmplexity of control ex-
ercised by the several states sets too
many difficulties in the way.
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 Sc
curities company For instance, il owns
outright, at BayOnne, n. J., the largest
refinery in the world. There is nothing
in the decree to prevent the company
from continuing to do business, although
1 admit that it makes doing business more
cumbersome.
individuals Can Act.
Although the decree enjoins the STAN
dard Oil company from voting its share
holdings in subsidiary companies or re-
ceiving dividends from them, there is no
reason why the individual holders among
whom such shares would be divided un-
der the decree should not elect their own
officers in the subsidiary companies and
receive their own dividends from those
companies. A proxy system among our
5000 shareholders would certainly be no
more unmana geable than the same sys-
TEN as now used by railroad and indus
trial companies with, say, 5000 share
holders
''In brief, there is no cause for the mar
ket to fear a forced Liquidation of the |
securities the Standard OIL company now
holds. 1 disagree with the gentlemen who |
er than OF the sort 1 outlined in my first |
statement"
Circuit Courts Order.
Mr.. Elliott in that statement said he |
understood the court to order that Stan |
dard Oil company holdings in subsidiary |
be apportioned among Stan |
dard Oil company share owners in ratio /
to their holdings IN the parent company. |
An executive officer of the company /
said today that no alarm was felt over /
the possibility of criminal prosecution UNI |
der Section II Of the Sherman antitrust /
act should the present decree in equity /
be upheld In the supreme court.