Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1911-05-16

! sM CONTINUED From Page ID
Henry H. Rogers, John D. Archbold.
Oliver H. Payne and Charles H. Pratt.
all defendants In the suit, denied the
charges.
! The General Law Of Attack.
| Months were spent in gathering evil
dence. The general line of attack as
shown by evidence presented by the
government was this: 1t claimed that
about 1870 the Rockefellers and Flag
Ter conceived the idea of controlling
the petroleum trade Of the country,
and 4 little later entered into a con-
spiracy with Rogers, Archbold, Payne
and Pratt to gain control of the oil
business. To carry out this alleged con-
/ spiracy, It was claimed, they first
pooled" their interests, then put them
! into the hands of trustees or trusts"
/ and finally when the trust of 1882 was
declared "void" in decision by the
! Ohio supreme court In proceeding
against the Standard OIL company OF
Ohio. reorganized the Standard OH
company Of New Jersey to take over
their interests and to secure monopoly.
Evidence Of rebating, OF price cutting
and Of the organization of secret con-
Germs to pose as independents was
ELECTED to show that the Standard was
seeking by unfair means to restrain
trade and to procure a monopoly.
STANDARD Oil" introduced evidence
to show that there had never been
such conspiracy. It sought to prove
that the Ohio supreme court did not
hold the trust agreement of 1882 void,
but merely required the Standard OIL
L 80 n
the trust" Evidence was produced to
show that rebating had been the order
of the day among all commercial con-
Germs, that price cutting and secret
concerns were not the rule and were
uaod as legitimate instruments of CON-
petition.
Circuit Courts Finding.
The circuit court held that the re.
organization OF the Standard Oil COM
pany of New Jersey in 1899 was not
only violation of the first section OF
the act, which referred to restraints
Of trade, but also OF the second sec
ton. which applied to monopolizing.
The Standard Oil had argued mat
4 there could be no additional restraint
as a result OF the reorganization De-
cause the Standard Oil company OF
body of owners in exactly the same
PROPORTION that all the subsidiary COM
panies taken over by this new organ1-
l cation had been held by these same
! common owners for years past. The
4 court held otherwise and said that the
4 combination in single corporation or
person, by an exchange Of stock, Of
\ the power of many stockholders hold
/ Of the majority Of the stock Of each OF
i several corporations engaged In COM
MERGE in the same articles among the
states, or with foreign nations, to re-
strict competition therein, rendered
the DO .1er thus vested in the corpora
ton or person greater, more easily cx-
! ercised, more durable and more effec-
tive than that previously held by the
stockholders In these effects, the
I court found a restraint on commerce.
| The court then proceeded to evolve
a plan to remedy the situation. 1t
entered a decree, enjoining the Stand
! ard Oil company Of New Jersey from
exercising any control, by reason of it's
| stock ownership, over the subsidiary
companies. Furthermore 1t enjoined
these subsidiary companies from pay
ing any dividends to the Standard OH
4 company Of New Jersey. 1t put pro-
vision in the decree to enjoin any pos
sible evasion Of the decree by the
organization OF similar combination
or of the conveyance Of the property
to one of the defendants Unless the
defendants should sever the relations
and cease the combination within 80
days, they were to be enjoined from
engaging in interstate commerce until
! they did cease the combination.
From the circuit court, the case vas
brought to the supreme court Of the
United States The record laid before
the higher tribunal probably was the