Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-04-12

the Waters Pierce Oil Company was
resident in the circuit. and the stand
ard denied the right of the court 10
compel the other defendants, OUTSIDE
the circuit. to appear in court. IL ioSt
in this contention. Testimony was tax
en- in Missouri and in New YORK. RIM
ally, early in this year, over three years
after the filing of the petition IN the
circuit court, the four judges VINO had
been called in to pass on the SUIT an
nounccd the decree of the court.
That decree upheld nearly every con-
tention the government had made. 1t
did, however, dismiss some of the de-
PENDANT companies. 1t decreed that
the reorganization of the Standard Oil
Company of New Jersey in 1899 con-
stitutcd a combination and a conspiracy
in restraint of commerce among the
states and with foreign nations, and a
combination and conspiracy to mOnopo-
lie that commerce in violation of Sec
tons one and two respectively of the
sherman antitrust act
The ~ inciial or holding company was
anJoined from dicctire the affairs of the
subsidiary corporations, and the sub
sidiaE corporations We're prohibited
from paying dividends To the holding
company. The defendants were cnjoin-
d from engaging in Interstate com
mcrce, until the Illegal combination was
discontinued.
Lest H." defendants get around the
deere" in SOM" manner the court onjoin-
ed them from carrying the combination
into further effect either by the use of
liouidat!n2 certificates given to trustees,
ar ~ An agreement or arrangement like
that adiudged illegal.
1t did however, grant permission spe-
riallS for the distribution ratably TO
the shareholders of the holding company
of the shares in the subsidiary corpora
lions.
Then tie suit was brought to the SUI
prem" court of the United States ON the
Ipp"Hi of the Standard. On account of
the great importance of the case, it was
"dNanyed for AN early hearing.
ON March II of the present year. the
final argument of the ease began. 1t
lasted three days. For the Standard Oil,
the most brilliant lawyers obtainable
pleaded its cause. John &. johnson of
Philadelphia headed the list. and assoc
ciated with him were John c. Milburn of
New York and u. T. Watson of Pitts
burg. For the government. Attorney
General Wickersham in person and
Frank f. Kellogg Of st. Paul directed
the fight
The government dwclt upon what is
termed the Standards enormous profits
and high prices, the pipe lines as an aid
to monop"N numerous contracts in re-
straint Of trade, railroad rebates and
in connection with the al
legged monopoly ny the Standard on rail
road fabrication and various forms Of
'unfair methods of competition"
The circuit court based it's decree on
the single finding that the reorganization
nj the Standard Oil in 1899 was a VIOLA
ton of the sherman antitrust law In
Its fight before the supreme court the
government argued that even if this were
not IA violation of the law. other acts
We're, For instance. there had been =
continuing conspiracy to monopolize the
trade. the government claimed. In SIM
port of tEi+ contention Of existing monop-
oH II pointed to the finding of the cir
cunt court to the effect that the Standard
> ''ili lN'' 10 l'0i,
PRODUCED more than lilo of the crude
OIL obtained in this country.
owned ami operated more than of all
tile tank cars used to distribute its PRO
duets.
manufactured more than of all the
cfude oil refined in the United States.
transported more than 4-5 of the pc
ifoieum derived from the Pennsylvania
and Indiana oil fields.
Marketed more than As of all the il
Eliminating oil sold in the United States.
Exported more tnan a. of all the il
Eliminating oil sent forth from the United
States.
Sold more than As of all the naphtha
sold in the United States
Sold more than 9-1o of all the lubricat-
ing oil sold to railroad companies in the
United States.
Throughout the fight the reorganization
of 1899 was the storm center. and in de-
fence of that action the legal talent of
the Standard directed its energy.
The claim was set up that the reorcan-
ization of 1899 did not restrain trade by
reducing competition, because the prom
critics involved in this suit formed nom
competitive group prior to the massage
or the Sherman act in 1890 and their
transfer to the New Jersey corporation
III 1879 did not alter their status or ra-
strict competition
rms same defence was made in the
circuit court. That court held that the
power OF the principal company after tho
t'ahsten of 1899 to fix the prices at which
the corporations should buy and sell ~
articles in which they dealt. the terms
or their purchases and sales their rat..
FOR the transportation of oil and its nro.
ducts and all the infinite details of their
vast operations in which they might com.
pete was greater, more easily and quick
~ exercised and hence more effective
| than it could have been in the hands of
5000 scattered stockholders. 1t held that
the corporations were potentially COM
petitive if not active competitors.