Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-11-12
TEXAS SUIT SEEKS
BAN ON u LARGE
OIL DISTRIBUTORS
Two Trade Associations In
Guided in Anti Trust Vio-
Iation Charge.
GROUP is ACCUSED
OF MONOPOLY PLAN
Companies Would Be 0usted From
State and Fined Maximum
of $17,s50,ooo.
BY the Associated Press.

BY the Associated Press.
AUSTIN, Tex, November 12.-Ouster
suits against Is oil companies and two
petroleum trade associations were filed
in Travis County District Court today
by James v. Alfred, Texas attorney gen.
eral. The petition charged violation
of the State antitrust laws.
Alfred charged existence of Ma
tion-wide conspiracy to control and
dominate the business of marketing
gasoline and petroleum products and
to destroy independent filling station
operators"
Institute Is Named.
The defendants are: The Standard
OIL Co. of New Jersey, Standard Oil
Co. of New York, the Standard Oil Co.
of California, the Shell Union Oil
CORPORATION, Humble Oil 81 Refining
Co, the Texas Co., Gulf Refining Co..
Pasotex Petroleum Co., Continental OH
Co, Sinclair Refining Co, Magnolia
Petroleum Co., Simms on Co., Snell
Petroleum Corporation, Cities Service
Oil Co., Texas Pacific Coal d. on Co.
Texas Petroleum Marketers' Assocla-
oil.
The suit asked forfeiture Of the char.
ters of the domestic corporations named
as attendants, cancellation OF the per-
Ynits of foreign corporations operating
in Texas, liens upon the property OF an
defendants. and fines under the anti
trust laws from November 20, 1929, to
the date Of the suit, approximately 7OO
days.
Fines Can Total s17,s5o,OOo.
The attorney general said the de-
Pendants each were liable for mini
mum fine Of $35 900 or maximum me
of S1,050,000 or total minimum OF
1886 600 and a total maximum OF SIT,
$50, 900.
The IS companies and two associa-
tions were charged with having been
engaged since November 20, 1929. in
svstenatic program of acquiring all in
dependent filling stations in Texas; fix-
ing the price Of gasoline and petroleum
products: fixing the price OF nll1ng sta
ton equipment; lessening and eliminat.
ing competition among themselves and
generally dominating the marketing
branch Of the oil industry.
This practice was carried out under
the ruise of complying with a so-called
code of practices" and with the pur-
ported approval of the Federal Trade
Commission, Alfred charged
Secret Inquiries Held.
Investigation Of the oil companies
has been carried on by the attorney
general for several months. In August
a special session of the Legislature ap-
propriated an additional $4,000 to the
attorney general to continue the in
quiry.
were held throughout the State, and
several trips made to investigate the
books of companies in other States.
All except two of the defendants are
chartered to operate a general oil busi-
ness.
The petition charged that the Stand
ard Oil Co. of New Jersey, lin order to
avoid jurisdiction of State courts, and
to escape tax law liabilities, resorted to
the scheme Of taking over subsidiary
the Humble Oil & Refining Co, In 1919
Company Given Territory.
The Humble Oil g. Refining Co, the
Texas and other sections Of the South
in which to operate for the benefit OF
the parent corporation and no other
controlled or subsidiary organization OF
the Standard of New Jersey completes
with the Humble in this territory.
Through the Humble Co.. the Stand
ard of New Jersey has carried out con-
spiracies in restraint Of trade and IN
violation of the antitrust laws" Alfred
stated.
Undera the same procedure, the
standard Oil Co. of New York set up
the Magnolia Petroleum Co., the petit
ton alleged
w. S. Parish of Houston, president
of the Humble, and E. r. Brown OF
Dallas, president Of the Magnolia, rep
resent the subsidiaries on the boards
of the parent companies, the petition
states.
The Standard Oil Co. of California
CONTINUED on Page Q, Column -