s*3 
 
 2-r {JC's.**+LjmlL 
 -L jv- 
 
 No. 398. 
 
 u 
 
 Mi 
 
 October Term, 1910; 
 
 Standard Oil Company of New Jersey et al., 
 
 Appellants,' ; > 
 
 ^ %'3 ' 
 
 United States of America, Appellee. 
 
 REPLY BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM, 
 
 Attorney General. 
 
 FRANK B. KELLOGG, 
 CORDENIO A. SEVERANCE, 
 
 /Special Assistants to the Attorney General. 
 
 ¥. : r-. c - 
 
 •V 
 
 • r -•'•4C 
 
 
 A 
 
 
AkhJUA 
 
 n • i*T 
 
 V \ .X- S, ; , V X 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 I. What is a combination under the first section of the anti-trust 
 
 act?. 1 
 
 II. Combinations effected by purchase are equally within the in¬ 
 hibitions of the law. 15 
 
 III. The shareholders were not the same in 1879, in 1882, and in 
 
 1899. 22 
 
 IY. What is a monoply under the second section of the anti-trust 
 
 act?.. 32 
 
 V. Evidence that the defendant companies obtained rebates and 
 discriminatory rates of transportation, and engaged in unfair 
 and oppressive methods of competition, is material in this 
 
 case. 42 
 
 VI. Railroad freight rates.. 59 
 
 VII. Growth of competitors of Standard Oil Company. 59 
 
 VIII. Tank cars. . 61 
 
 IX. Competing refineries purchase and dismantled. 61 
 
 Appendix A, list of States having anti-trust constitutional and statu¬ 
 tory provisions, and references to sections thereof. 65 
 
 Appendix B, schedule showing changes in the personnel of the owners 
 
 of the stock in the Standard organization at various periods.... Facing 68 
 ppendix C, partial list of concerns combined with or acquired by 
 Standard Oil interests since the organization of the Standard Oil 
 Company in 1870, showing the property acquired, manner of com¬ 
 bination or acquisition, names of former owners who thereupon 
 received stock in the Standard organization, and whether the prop¬ 
 erty was thereafter operated or dismantled, etc. Facing 68 
 
 (i) 
 
 72719—11-1 
 
 
 S r^'OOQ 
 
 * t>00 
 
Jn the Supreme dfonrt of the itnitett states. 
 
 October Term, 1910. 
 
 Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, ' 
 et al., appellants, 
 
 v. 
 
 No. 398. 
 
 United States of America, appellee. 
 
 / J 
 
 REPLY brief for the united states. 
 
 I. 
 
 What is a combination under the first section of the 
 
 Anti-Trust Act? 
 
 We wish first to discuss the meaning of section 
 1 of the act, especially in reply to subdivision 3 of 
 defendants 7 brief. 
 
 Counsel say that a combination under this sec¬ 
 tion is a “ contractual combination, 77 executory in 
 nature, whereby each separate person or corporation 
 contracts to restrain the management of his own 
 business (p. 60). Let us consider this proposition. 
 There is nothing in the act which limits its scope to 
 contractual combinations. In fact, if this was the 
 true interpretation, the word “combination 77 would 
 
 (i) 
 
2 
 
 be surplusage, for a “ contract” in restraint of trade 
 would cover the whole field. But it is evident that 
 such is not the interpretation intended, or which has 
 been applied by this court. It is true that various 
 contracts, combinations, and conspiracies were at the 
 time of the passage of the act well known to the 
 courts and to the Congress, and, as counsel say, some 
 of these were the combinations involved in the Sugar 
 and Whisky Trust cases. (Brief, p. 54.) They, how 
 ever, omit the most conspicuous one, the Standard 
 Oil Trust, after which the Sugar and Whisky Trust 
 combinations were patterned. Congress knew of 
 these combinations, and intended by the Sherman 
 Act to declare them illegal in the domain of inter¬ 
 state commerce. (See discussions of Congress, vol. 
 1 of our brief, p. 289 et seq.) Counsel concede this 
 class of combinations to be in violation of law. The 
 only possible difference between those trusts and the 
 combination at bar is that a corporation now holds 
 the stocks rather than the trustees. Is there any 
 saving virtue in a corporation over a set of individu¬ 
 als? In the Northern Securities case this court held 
 not. Now, Congress did not intend the inhibition of 
 the act to run merely against the trust form of com¬ 
 bination, but provided by section 1 that— 
 
 Every contract, combination in the form of 
 trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint 
 of trade * * * is hereby declared to be 
 illegal. 
 
 It means any contract or combination in the form 
 of a trust or otherwise, thereby making the act 
 
3 
 
 flexible to cover any form or device employed to 
 hold together corporations or naturally competing 
 business establishments so as to eliminate compe¬ 
 tition. This is clear, not only from the reading of 
 the act, but from the numerous decisions of this 
 court and of the State courts construing like stat¬ 
 utes and defining combinations. 
 
 Supplementing the cases reviewed in volume 1 
 of our brief, we have a number of cases decided in 
 the State courts at about the time of the former 
 argument of this case before this court, in which those 
 courts have held this identical Standard Oil combina- 
 nation of 1899, and other similar ones, in violation of 
 State statutes. 
 
 The laws of the various States under which these 
 decisions have been rendered are in effect, as applied 
 to intrastate commerce, substantially the same as 
 the Sherman Act applied to interstate commerce. 
 We attach hereto as Appendix A a list of these 
 statutes and sections of constitutions in 36 States, 
 nearly all of them passed since the enactment of 
 the Sherman Act. They evince a great public 
 policy of this nation, which is a material considera¬ 
 tion in this court. (Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Mason 
 City Co., 199 U. S., 167.) 
 
 These statutes have been enforced against the 
 Standard Oil combination as to intrastate commerce 
 in several States, and various constituent corpora¬ 
 tions of this combination excluded from those States. 
 Like decisions have been rendered against other 
 similar combinations. How many other cases are 
 
4 
 
 now pending we can not say, but it is evident that 
 the States are enforcing these statutes, and unless 
 the Federal Government enforces the Sherman Act 
 we shall have the anomalous condition of these great 
 combinations being held invalid as to intrastate 
 commerce and excluded from the States, while as to ‘ 
 interstate commerce they may continue to do busi¬ 
 ness under the shield of Federal authority. 
 
 State of Missouri v. Standard Oil Co., 218 
 Mo., p. 1. 
 
 State of Texas v. Waters-Pierce Oil Co., 106 
 S. W., 925; same case , 177 U. S., 28. 
 
 State of Minnesota v. Standard Oil Co., 126 
 N. W., 527. 
 
 State of Tennessee v. Standard Oil Co., 117 
 Tenn., 618. 
 
 State of Tennessee v. Standard Oil Co., 120 
 Tenn., 86; s. c. 217 U. S., 413. 
 
 State of Kansas v. International Harvester 
 
 Co., 79 Kans., 371; 99 Pac., 603. 
 
 State of Kansas v. International Harvester 
 
 Co., 81 Kans., 610; 106 Pac., 1053. 
 
 State of Kentucky v. Int. Harvester Co., 124 
 Ky., 543; 99 S. W., 637. 
 
 State of Missouri v. Armour Packing Co., 
 173 Mo., 356; 73 S. W., 645. 
 
 Hammond Packing Co. v. State of Arkansas, 
 
 81 Ark., 519; affirmed, 212 U. S., 322. 
 
 State of Minnesota v. Creamery Package 
 Mfg. Co., 126 N. W., 126. 
 
 In fact the question of the validity of the Standard 
 Oil Trust of 1882, or the present combination of 
 1899, and like combinations, has never come before 
 the courts of the States without their being declared 
 
5 
 
 C, 4 
 
 invalid under antitrust statutes similar to the Fed¬ 
 eral law. 
 
 State v. Standard Oil Co., 49 Ohio St., 137. 
 
 State v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., Solar Refin¬ 
 ing Co., Ohio Oil Co., and Standard Oil Co. of 
 Ohio, 61 Oh. St. 520. 
 
 People v. North River Sugar Refining Co., 54 
 Hun., 354. 
 
 Distilling & Cattle Feeding Co. v. People, 
 
 156 Ill., 448. 
 
 State v. Nebraska Distilling Co., 29 Neb., 
 700. 
 
 Nat’l Lead Co. v. Grote Paint Store Co., 80 
 Mo. App., 247. 
 
 In the case of Missouri v. Standard Oil Co. (218 
 Mo., 1) the court had under consideration the iden¬ 
 tical organization involved in this case. The court 
 there, speaking of the case of National Lead Co. v. 
 Grote Paint Co. (80 Mo. App., 247), said (218 Mo., 
 452, 453): 
 
 That the predecessor of the plaintiff, the 
 National Lead Trust, was an unlawful com¬ 
 bination, both in purpose and fact, is suffi¬ 
 ciently established by the nature of the agree¬ 
 ment under which it is created and the 
 methods and practices resorted to in the fur¬ 
 therance of that agreement. * * * While 
 the conclusion of the illegal purpose of the 
 trust agreement is irresistible upon a consid¬ 
 eration of its several provisions and the man¬ 
 ner in which they were carried out, it will ap¬ 
 pear from an examination of the cases that this 
 result has been declared by every court called 
 upon to review that agreement or others sub- 
 
6 
 
 stantially like it. State v. Standard Oil Co ., 
 49 Ohio St., 137, 30 N. E., 279, 15 L. R. A., 
 156 Ill., 448, 41 N. E., 188, 47 Am. St. Rep., 
 200; Distilling, etc., Co. v. People, 156 Ill., 
 448; Bishop v. A. Preserving Co., 157 Ill., 100, 
 cit. 311, 41 N. E., 765, 48 Am. St. Rep., 317; 
 People v. N. R. C. Co., 121 N. Y., 582,24 N. E., 
 834, 9 L. R. A., 33, 18 Am. St. Rep., 843; 
 Unckles v. Colgate, 148 N. Y., 529, 43 N. E., 
 59; U. S. v. Freight Assn., 166 U. S., 290, . 
 17 Sup. Ct., 540, 41 L. ed., 1007; U. S. v. 
 Joint Traffic Assn., 171 U. S., 505, 19 Sup. 
 Ct., 25, 43 L. ed., 259. 
 
 In the case of Merchants Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. 
 Rohrman (128 S. W., 599), suit was brought by the 
 Merchants Co. against Rohrman to enjoin him from 
 violating a contract in which he obligated himself 
 for a period of 10 years not to engage in manu¬ 
 facturing and selling ice in Jefferson County, Ky. 
 It appears that the Merchants Company had acquired 
 a large percentage of the concerns engaged in manu¬ 
 facturing and selling ice in Louisville and vicinity. 
 The court said (p. 601): 
 
 From these facts, our conclusion is that 
 the contract was not only unenforceable be¬ 
 cause in violation of the statute before its 
 amendment by the act of 1906 (Laws, 1906, c. 
 117), held to amend in Commonwealth v. 
 International Harvester Company of America 
 (115 S. W., 703), but it was void as an unrea¬ 
 sonable restraint of trade independent of the 
 statute. * * * 
 
 Where, therefore, one corporation is created 
 for the purpose of taking over a number of 
 
7 
 
 other corporations, issuing stock, or even pay¬ 
 ing for the property, with a view of establishing 
 a monopoly, trust, or combination, the form 
 of the transaction will be disregarded and the 
 intent of the parties will be looked to. 
 
 In case of State v. International Harvester Co. (79 
 Kans., 371), information was filed against the Inter¬ 
 national Harvester Company of America, charging it 
 with a violation of the antitrust statute of Kansas, 
 which in substance provided: 
 
 That all arrangements, contracts, agree¬ 
 ments, trusts, or combinations between per¬ 
 sons or corporations made with a view or 
 which tend to prevent full and free competi¬ 
 tion in the importation, transportation, or sale 
 of articles imported into this State, or in the 
 product, manufacture, or sale of articles of do¬ 
 mestic growth or product of domestic raw 
 material, * * * and all arrangements, 
 contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations 
 between persons or corporations designed or 
 which tend to advance, reduce, or control the 
 price or the cost to the producer or to the con¬ 
 sumer of any such products or articles, 
 * * * are hereby declared to be against 
 public policy, unlawful, and void. 
 
 It appeared in the case that the International Har¬ 
 vester Co. of America was the selling agent of the 
 International Harvester Company of New Jersey; that 
 the International Harvester Company of America had 
 purchased the plants and business of seven previously 
 competing concerns, and was a large corporation con¬ 
 trolling a large part of the sale of harvester machinery 
 
8 
 
 in Kansas. The corporation was convicted, and in 
 sustaining the conviction the Supreme Court of the 
 State said (p. 384): 
 
 In our view the information, taken as a 
 whole, clearly indicates that the offenses in¬ 
 tended to be prosecuted thereunder were sales 
 of machinery made by a corporation belonging 
 to a combination which is unlawful under the 
 statute of this State—in other words, sales 
 made in violation of section 2435, Gen. St. 
 1901, which in part reads: 
 
 “ That the * * * sale * * * of any 
 
 * * * commodities in this State by any cor¬ 
 poration who has entered into any such ar¬ 
 rangements, contracts, agreements, trusts, or 
 combinations in any other State or Territory 
 as described in sections 1 or 2 of this act, 
 
 * * * shall constitute a violation of this 
 
 act.” The numerous sales specifically and 
 separately alleged indicate the intent of the 
 prosecutor. To make these sales appear un¬ 
 lawful it was not only proper, but necessary, to 
 show by allegations somewhere in the informa¬ 
 tion that they were made by a corporation then 
 acting under some one of the many arrange¬ 
 ments, contracts, agreements, trusts, and com¬ 
 binations made unlawful by the statute. It 
 was deemed necessary when the statute was 
 drawn to use language broad enough to cover 
 every conceivable combination through which 
 the interdicted acts could by any reasonable 
 possibility be perpetrated. * * * 
 
 It seems clear from these introductory allega¬ 
 tions that the defendant at the time the alleged 
 sales were made had entered into one or more 
 
9 
 
 of the prohibited organizations. This is suffi¬ 
 cient; whether it belonged to one of such 
 organizations or all of them is immaterial. 
 
 Subsequently a suit was brought to oust the Inter¬ 
 national Harvester Company of America from the 
 State under the same statute, and on substantially 
 the same state of facts. The court said (81 Kans., 
 612): 
 
 (60) It is apparent from the evidence that 
 the International Harvester Company of New 
 Jersey acquired by purchase six or more of 
 the brands of harvesting machinery (including 
 the brand formerly manufactured and sold by 
 the defendant), which, prior to 1903, had been 
 sold in Kansas in active competition with each 
 other; and that the effect of its so acquiring 
 the same has been to fix and control the whole¬ 
 sale prices of such brands of machinery in the 
 State of Kansas. It is further apparent from 
 the evidence that the purpose of this merger 
 was to reduce operating expenses and de¬ 
 crease competition. 
 
 (61) The practical effect of this merger and 
 the connection of the defendant with the 
 International Harvester Company of New 
 Jersey has been to regulate and control the 
 retail and wholesale prices of harvesting ma¬ 
 chines in the State of Kansas, and to secure 
 to the defendant approximately 85 per cent 
 of this business within this State. 
 
 In this case because the expulsion of the company 
 from the State of Kansas would practically deprive 
 the State of ability to buy harvesters except from 
 the Harvester Company, the Attorney General con- 
 
10 
 
 sented to a decree limiting the remedy to that of 
 setting aside certain unlawful agreements as to 
 agents, making unfair discrimination in the sale of 
 goods, etc. 
 
 The foregoing case illustrates the necessity for 
 action by the Federal Government. Here is a cor¬ 
 poration held to be a trust and combination in viola¬ 
 tion of statutes substantially like the federal anti¬ 
 trust act, and yet the State is compelled to permit 
 violation of its laws because of the power of such a 
 company to take from the farmers of the State any 
 opportunity to buy except at prices fixed by the 
 trust. 
 
 In the case of International Harvester Co. v. Com¬ 
 monwealth (124 Ky., 543, 99 S. W., 637), an indict¬ 
 ment charged the International Harvester Company 
 of America, the selling agent, with violation of the 
 antitrust act of the State of Kentucky. It appears 
 in this case, as it did in the Kansas case, that the 
 defendant was the selling agent of the International 
 Harvester Company. Conviction was sustained. The 
 court said (p. 552): 
 
 From the evidence it is certain that there 
 was a combination, or agreement, to fix the 
 price of these machines referred to, entered 
 into by the owners thereof, and possibly 
 others. It is pretty certain that that agree¬ 
 ment was made outside of this State, and if 
 they had never come into this State to execute 
 the agreement, or any part of it, they would 
 not be liable to punishment here; but the 
 proof shows that they were executing the 
 
11 
 
 agreement in this State, and possibly the 
 agent of the appellant, in this State, entered 
 into the combination or agreement, after they 
 entered this State, to carry out the agreement, 
 and under the authority referred to such agent 
 occupied the same position as the original 
 parties to the unlawful agreement. 
 
 In the case of State v. Creamery Package Manu¬ 
 facturing Co. (Minn.) (126 N. W., 126) suit was 
 brought by the State to oust the defendant from 
 doing business in the State on the ground that it 
 was a combination and a trust in violation of the 
 laws of the State. From the findings of fact it 
 appears that prior to February, 1898, F. B. Fargo 
 & Co. of Minnesota, F. B. Fargo & Co. of Wisconsin, 
 Cornish, Curtis & Greene Manufacturing Co. of 
 Wisconsin, Cornish, Curtis & Greene of Minnesota, 
 and A. H. Barber & Co. of Illinois were severally 
 engaged in Minnesota in selling creamery supplies 
 such as churns, butter-making machines, etc., and 
 that there had been competition between them; 
 that about February, 1898, the defendant was 
 organized, and exchanged its stock for the various 
 properties of the defendant corporations, under an 
 agreement that the purchasing company might con¬ 
 tinue to use the names of the selling companies in the 
 various communities for the purpose of continuing 
 the business. The testimony also showed that about 
 the spring of 1898 the defendant company also bought 
 the J. A. Cushman Co. of Iowa, the E. W. Ward Co. 
 of Minnesota, the Freemont Butter Tub Co. of Illi- 
 
12 
 
 nois, the Stoddard Manufacturing Co. of Vermont, 
 and the Sturgis, Cornish & Burn Co. of Iowa. The 
 court found that this consolidation or combination 
 was made for the purpose of eliminating competition; 
 that after the agreement of purchase was made the 
 defendant used the names of certain of the corpora¬ 
 tions in the various localities where they previously 
 had been doing business. Traveling agents were 
 sent out, each pretending to be the agent of one or 
 the other of said concerns; but they did not com¬ 
 pete with each other, and the defendant Creamery 
 Package Manufacturing Co. divided up the territory 
 among the various concerns thus doing business. 
 This is exactly the way the territory is divided up 
 in the Standard Oil case. The court said (p. 129): 
 
 We believe the February agreement to 
 have been unlawful under the common law. 
 (State v. Duluth Bd. of Trade , 107 Minn., 506, 
 121 N. W., 395, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1260.) 
 But we do not find it necessary to rest our 
 decision upon that ground, nor to discuss the 
 various statutes created since the making of the 
 agreement in 1898. The State claims appel¬ 
 lant is a party to and now maintains a com¬ 
 bination in restraint of trade, in violation of 
 section 5168, Revised Laws, 1905, which for¬ 
 bids entering into any pool, trust, agreement, 
 combination, or understanding whatsoever 
 with others in restraint of trade, or to limit, 
 fix, control, maintain, or regulate the price of 
 any article of trade, manufacture, or use, or 
 to prevent or limit competition in the pur- 
 
13 
 
 chase and sale of such articles. As already 
 said, appellant is subject to that statute, and 
 we have left to consider whether appellant is 
 violating it, and, if so, is the statute a valid 
 police regulation by the State as applied to 
 appellant, whose transactions consist princi¬ 
 pally in the sale of patented articles? * * * 
 The reason for authorizing the creation of cor¬ 
 porations and their legal status when formed 
 are familiar to all. A characteristic quality 
 of a corporation, which is essential to the 
 utility of the association, is that for the trans¬ 
 action of its legitimate business it be a legal 
 entity, having its own life and individuality 
 distinct from its members; but when the cor¬ 
 porate form is assumed by individuals for the 
 purpose of evading the law, and as a mere 
 cloak under which unlawful practices may be 
 concealed, the courts will disregard the ap¬ 
 pearance and consider the substance, and 
 thus determine the propriety of the transaction 
 under scrutiny. ( People v. North River Sugar 
 Refining Co ., 121 N. Y., 582, 24 N. E., 834, 
 9 L. R. A., 33, 18 Am. St. Rep., 843; Unckles 
 v. Colgate , 148 N. Y., 529, 43 N. E., 59; Gal¬ 
 lagher v. Germania Brewing Co ., 53 Minn., 214, 
 54 N. W., 1115; State v. Standard Oil Co., 49 
 Ohio St., 137, 30 N. E., 279, 15 L. R. A., 145, 
 34 Am. St. Rep. 541; Harding v. Am. Glucose 
 Co., 182 III, 551, 55 N. E., 577, 64 L. R. A., 
 738, 74 Am. St. Rep., 189; Northern Securities 
 Co. v. United States, 193 U. S., 197, 24 Sup. Ct., 
 436, 48 L. Ed., 679; Cook on Corporations 
 (6th ed.), pp. 663, 664.) 
 
14 
 
 The February agreement contemplated no 
 
 absolute purchase and sale of the various 
 
 properties. Upon the contrary, the plan was 
 
 to place all the properties in the possession of 
 
 the appellant, to be managed jointly for the 
 
 benefit of the original owners, each of whose 
 
 interest was to be evidenced bv shares of the 
 
 «/ 
 
 capital stock of appellant issued to each in 
 proportion to his original holding. If in 
 place of the corporation an individual had 
 been selected, who, when the legal title was 
 vested in him, issued certificates of trust, the 
 violation of law would be apparent. This 
 agreement went further. It provided for 
 directors, representing those who made trans¬ 
 fers of property, and for a minimum division 
 of profits, thus continuing the control of each 
 interest instead of leaving such control with 
 the majority of the stock, where it is ordi¬ 
 narily found; and, notwithstanding the pro¬ 
 vision for dissolution of the corporations so 
 transferring their respective properties, the 
 right to use the name of each for the purpose 
 of simulating competition was attempted to 
 be conferred upon the appellant. The record 
 does not disclose the terms upon which the 
 properties of the concerns not parties to the 
 agreement were subsequently taken over, but 
 without regard to those transactions it must 
 be held that the learned trial judge was en¬ 
 tirely correct in describing the transfer made 
 pursuant to the February agreement as a 
 nominal purchase. 
 
15 
 
 II. 
 
 Combinations effected by purchase are equally within 
 
 the inhibitions of the law. 
 
 (1) Defendants’ counsel contend that combina¬ 
 tions effected by purchase of property, either stock or 
 plants, are not within the inhibition of the first sec¬ 
 tion of the act. This is stated in various ways on 
 pages 58, 59, 63, and at other places through their 
 brief. 
 
 It is said that “ purchases and acquisitions of 
 property are not contracts, combinations, or con¬ 
 spiracies in restraint of trade;” that a person has a 
 right to buy a competing business and that the inci¬ 
 dental restraint which goes with this purchase is 
 not and can not be prohibited by Congress (pp. 58 
 and 63). 
 
 The transfer of the stocks of these companies in 1899 
 to the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey had no 
 greater legal sanctity than the transfer to the trustees 
 in 1882; nor was it different than the transfer of the 
 stocks of the Northern Pacific and Great Northern 
 railways to the Northern Securities Co. in 1901, two 
 years after the organization of the present corporate 
 Standard Oil combination. It is the usual course of 
 reasoning urged in all of these cases that because a 
 person has a right to purchase property he may there¬ 
 fore purchase a competitor; and because he may pur¬ 
 chase one competitor, he may purchase all of his com¬ 
 petitors; and that what an individual may do, a cor- 
 ' poration may do. These were the identical argu- 
 
 72719—11-2 
 
16 
 
 merits pressed with great ability by counsel in the 
 Northern Securities case, and in the subsequent case 
 of Harriman v. Northern Securities Co. (197 U. S., 
 291), but this court held to the contrary. The posi¬ 
 tion is also contrary to the almost universal trend of 
 American decisions, both Federal and State. (See 
 Shawnee Compress Co. v. Anderson , 209 U. S., 433, 
 and cases cited under the first head of this brief.) The 
 exercise of an individual right disconnected from all 
 the other circumstances may be legal, but when taken 
 together with the other circumstances may accom¬ 
 plish the prohibited thing. 
 
 % 
 
 (2) But the counsel say, these corporations were 
 merely potential competitors in 1899; that “ potential 
 competition is a term borrowed from economics and 
 means that the field is open to newcomers.” We 
 take it the word was used by the Circuit Court in its 
 ordinary meaning, to wit: 
 
 Possible, as opposed to actual; capable of 
 being or becoming; capable of coming into 
 full being or manifestation. (Century Dic¬ 
 tionary.) 
 
 These corporations were separate and distinct 
 entities, each owning its separate plant and capable 
 of competing. The only reason they did not com¬ 
 pete was because of the illegal combination which 
 had been declared void and which had been dis¬ 
 solved. The companies were thereafter simply held 
 together by secret understandings of the majority in 
 ownership of the then two or three thousand stock¬ 
 holders. They were potentially competing compa- 
 
17 
 
 nies, the same as the Great Northern and the North¬ 
 ern Pacific railroads were. There was no evidence 
 that these railroads were actually competing; in fact, 
 at the time of the organization of the Securities 
 Company they were controlled by certain common 
 owners, to wit, Hill and his associates, and Morgan 
 and his associates; but, as the court said, they were 
 naturally competing companies. 
 
 It is also said that industrial corporations owe 
 no duty to compete. No one is under any legal 
 obligation to compete. The law says that parties 
 shall not, by contract, or combination in the form 
 of trust or otherwise, remove the incentive to com¬ 
 pete, leaving it to the natural laws of trade to cre¬ 
 ate and foster competition. At least this is the 
 rule as to railroads, and the court has said that 
 the same principle applies to other corporations. 
 (.Northern Securities Co. v. U. S .; U. S. v. Trans-Mis¬ 
 souri Freight Ass’n.) In the Northern Securities case 
 it was said, in effect, that the transfer of all the 
 stocks to a holding company took away the incentive 
 to compete and gave the power to restrain trade. 
 The law looks to the substance of the thing 
 accomplished rather than to the form. 
 
 (3) What was the actual situation in 1879? The 
 Standard Oil Company had not purchased these cor¬ 
 porations nor the properties thereof. There was 
 simply a tentative combination through certain 
 trustees. A large number of concerns, admitted to 
 have been competing, were combined by stock 
 
18 
 
 ownership, in the following manner: There were a 
 large number of competing concerns engaged in 
 business in the Eastern States, each concern owned 
 by a separate set of stockholders. These stock¬ 
 holders turned their stocks over, by the trust of 
 1879, to Vilas, Keith, and Chester, trustees, for the 
 purpose of dividing the same in certain proportions 
 among all the stockholders. Thereafter these stocks, 
 together with the stocks of certain other corpora¬ 
 tions, were placed in the trust of 1882. The latter 
 trust was dissolved because illegal, and another com¬ 
 bination formed in 1899. 
 
 * 
 
 In what respect does this differ from the Northern 
 Securities case? For instance, let us suppose that 
 Hill and his associates, 10 in number, owned the 
 stock of the Great Northern Railway; Morgan and 
 his associates, 15 in number, owned the stock of 
 the Northern Pacific Railway; and Harriman and 
 his associates, 20 in number, owned the stock of 
 the Union Pacific Railroad; that these 45 gen¬ 
 tlemen got together and put their stocks in the 
 hands of Vilas, Keith, and Chester, trustees, to 
 divide the same among the 45 so that each stock¬ 
 holder (formerly holding stock in one railway 
 only) should become a holder of stock in all three 
 railways, and holding the same ratio thereof as all 
 the other stockholders. Then suppose in 1882 they 
 all turned their stock over to trustees, to hold and 
 manage the same under a trust like the Standard Oil 
 Trust, and that this was carried on until 1892, when 
 it was dissolved because the Supreme Court of Minne- 
 
19 
 
 sota held it to be in violation of the common law 
 respecting monopolies; and that the stockholders 
 then put their certificates in the hands of a holding 
 corporation in exchange for its stock. Would that 
 have been legal? Would they have any right to 
 combine because of the prior community of ownership ? 
 
 If the antitrust act can be thus evaded, it is of no 
 value whatever, for it would be an easy matter to get 
 the stockholders of all the competing corporations in 
 any branch of industry in America to turn their 
 stock over to trustees for the purpose of dividing it 
 among them in order to make them common owners 
 as a preliminary step to the combination. In fact, 
 the transfer to a corporation and receipt of that cor¬ 
 poration’s stock is in effect nothing more than this. 
 
 Suppose, after the Northern Securities Company 
 was dissolved and the stock of both the Northern 
 Pacific and Great Northern had been divided among 
 all the shareholders in proportion to the number of 
 Securities Company certificates held by each; then, 
 if the defendant’s theory is correct, becauses the 
 stockholders were common owners in both properties, 
 they could do what they please with their stock, and 
 could thereupon organize a new securities company, 
 which would be lawful because they had become com¬ 
 mon owners through the dissolution of the former 
 unlawful organization. 
 
 As a matter of fact, as the court stated in the 
 opinion below (Vol. A, p. 580), for some time before 
 the transfer of the stock to the Northern Securities 
 Company, a group of stockholders controlled a 
 
20 
 
 majority of the stock of the Northern Pacific and 
 Great Northern railways—not one group the Great 
 Northern, and another group the Northern Pacific, 
 as claimed by the defendants in the case at bar. It 
 appeared in the Northern Securities case that about 
 1895 Mr. Hill made a deal to obtain fifty per cent of 
 the stock of the reorganized Northern Pacific Com¬ 
 pany for the Great Northern stockholders, but as 
 this stock was to be transferred to the Great Northern 
 Railway Company, or held in trust for the stock¬ 
 holders, this court held the contract illegal. ( Pear¬ 
 sall v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 161 U. S., 646.) Sub¬ 
 sequently, about February, 1897, Hill and his asso¬ 
 ciates bought $25,834,100 par value of the common 
 stock of the reorganized Northern Pacific Company. 
 (Record in Northern Securities case, testimony of 
 J. P. Morgan, vol. 1, pp. 316, 317.) And later they 
 bought about $10,000,000 more. (Testimony of 
 Charles Steele, vol. 1, p. 286.) Mr. Hill stated the 
 names of the persons who were associated with him 
 in the Great Northern and Northern Pacific rail¬ 
 ways. They were John S. Kennedy, D. Willis 
 James, Samuel Thorne, J. W. Sterling, Oliver Payne, 
 Jacob Schiff, Henry W. Cannon, Lord Strathcona, 
 Lord Mount Stephen; and he said there may have 
 been others. (P. 49.) 
 
 So it appears that Mr. Hill and his associates and 
 Mr. Morgan and his associates, all owning stock in 
 both roads, controlled those two properties and had 
 for several years before the reorganization of the 
 Northern Pacific. (See record in Northern Securities 
 
21 
 
 case, vol. 1, testimony of James J. Hill, pp. 46, 48, 
 49, 50, 54, 55, 61, 62, 86, 87; Charles Steele, pp. 284, 
 286; J. P. Morgan, pp. 316, 317, 338, 343.) 
 
 In fact Mr. Morgan made the same claim as to 
 community of ownership which is made in the case at 
 bar. He said, speaking of this common ownership 
 in the two railroads: 
 
 “ The community of interest is that principle 
 that a certain number of men who own prop¬ 
 erty can do what they like with it.” (Record, 
 Northern Securities case, vol. 1, p. 343.) 
 
 (4) It is said that the decree should not run against 
 certain of these corporations because they were 
 created by the trustees during the years of the in¬ 
 valid trust. Suppose they were. They were sepa¬ 
 rate corporate entities, engaged in business, and by 
 
 joining in the conspiracy their action partook of the 
 
 \ 
 
 same illegality as though they were original parties 
 to it. (Government brief, vol. 1, p. 394, and authori¬ 
 ties cited.) 
 
 The defendants take inconsistent positions. When 
 they contend on behalf of the Standard Oil Company 
 of New Jersey that it should have all the constitu¬ 
 tional rights of individuals respecting the purchase 
 of property, they necessarily concede that the cor¬ 
 poration is an entity separate and distinct from its 
 stockholders. But in their proposition that the 
 decree should not run against those of its subsidiary 
 corporations which were organized by Standard 
 interests, they assert that the corporation merely 
 represents its shareholders and therefore should not 
 
22 
 
 be considered apart from those shareholders or 
 organizers, and should be exempt from the penalties 
 attaching to individuals who join a conspiracy after 
 it is formed. 
 
 III. 
 
 The shareholders were not the same in 1879, in 1882, 
 
 and in 1899. 
 
 (1) It is said that the same men owned all these 
 companies in 1879, in 1882, and in 1899 when the 
 last combination was formed. This statement is 
 not correct. We attach hereto as Appendix B an 
 analysis, so far as it can be made from the testimony, 
 showing in parallel columns the shareholders at the 
 different periods and the changes in the personnel 
 thereof. 
 
 The column headed “1870” shows the names, 
 9 in number, of the persons interested in the 
 Standard Oil Company of Ohio at that time. 
 
 The column of 1879 shows the stockholders of 
 the various separate corporations who placed their 
 stock in the Vilas, Keith, and Chester trust of 1879, 
 37 in number. Only 5 of the stockholders of the 
 original Standard Oil Company of Ohio went into 
 this trust. There were 32 persons, controlling out¬ 
 side and competing companies, who in the meantime 
 had united with the Standard and were added to 
 the list. 
 
 In 1882, which was two years and nine months 
 after the agreement of 1879, the number of share¬ 
 holders going into the Standard Oil Trust had in¬ 
 creased to 42, of which seven were new names. 
 
23 
 
 In 1892, the court will remember, only a few per¬ 
 sons, 17 in number, liquidated their trust certificates. 
 
 Between 1897 and 1900 the balance of the certifi¬ 
 cate holders, several thousand in number, liquidated 
 and took their stock in the 20 subcompanies, and 
 exchanged the same for stock of the Standard Oil 
 Company of New Jersey, as fully explained in volume 1 
 of our brief. 
 
 As hereinafter shown, we have never been able to 
 get a complete list of the shareholders in these sub¬ 
 companies during the years of the Standard Oil 
 Trust and the liquidation period, because the defend¬ 
 ants refused to produce it in court. However, we 
 got a partial list showing 112 persons, who turned 
 their stock into the Standard Oil Company of New 
 Jersey. There were in fact several thousand more. 
 Of the 112, only 20 persons were shareholders who 
 had turned their stock into the Standard Oil Trust in 
 1882. The balance of the 112, and the several thou¬ 
 sand other stockholders who were not named, were 
 new shareholders. 
 
 (2) The Government showed the combination of the 
 separate corporate entities , engaged in the same busi¬ 
 ness , in 1899. The burden thereupon rested upon the 
 defendants to show , if true , that the subcompanies were 
 n 1899 owned by the same individuals who owned 
 them in 1879 and 1882. We do not believe this was 
 material , but the defendants absolutely failed to sustain 
 any such proposition. The Government showed to 
 the contrary, and would have shown the complete 
 stock list had the defendants not refused to produce 
 
24 
 
 the transfer books of the trustees and the liquidating 
 trustees. 
 
 The Government tried to prove who the various 
 shareholders in the subcompanies were during the 
 existence of the trust, from 1882 to 1899, but could 
 not procure the books. It appeared in the case that 
 the trustees kept a regular set of stock books, so that 
 they could have told who the shareholders of the trust 
 were at any period. They also had a complete list 
 of the shareholders who turned their stock into the 
 Standard Oil Company of New Jersey in exchange 
 for its stock in 1899 and 1900. These stock books 
 were in the office and carefully preserved until 1900; 
 and, although the Government tried in every way 
 possible, by subpoenas duces tecum, by the examina¬ 
 tion of witnesses who should have known, and by 
 demands to produce these books, it never obtained 
 them. 
 
 The suboepnas duces tecum served on the officials 
 of the Standard Oil Company at the beginning of 
 the taking of testimony required them to produce 
 these books. (See Subpoenas, vol. 20, pp. 483, 485, 
 486.) One of these witnesses was C. M. Pratt, who 
 for years has been one of the most active men during 
 the existence of the trust as well as the present 
 corporate combination, who is a large stockholder 
 in the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, 
 and controls over 59,000 shares; who signed the 
 original trust agreement; was one of the liquidating 
 trustees for a short time; was the secretary of the 
 Standard Oil Company of New Jersey when the last 
 
25 
 
 combination was formed in 1899 and 1900, and who 
 is still the secretary. We invite the court’s attention 
 to his testimony, contained on pages 27 to 31 and 83 
 to 90, volume 1 of the record. His want of knowl¬ 
 edge concerning the liquidation and the control of 
 these companies during the liquidation period is 
 astonishing. 
 
 We also especially invite the court’s attention to 
 the testimony, given about the same time, of W. H. 
 Tilford, now deceased, who had been connected with 
 the Standard Oil organization since 1878 or 1879, who 
 was a liquidating trustee, the attorney-in-fact for the 
 liquidating trustees, and at the time of testifying was 
 treasurer of the New Jersey company. For days the 
 Government undertook to get from Mr. Tilford the 
 facts and the records showing how this liquidation 
 took place. The Government undertook to find out 
 where the transfer books of the liquidating trustees 
 were, but has never been able to find them or procure 
 their production. (Record, vol. 1, pp. 95-184, espe¬ 
 cially pp. 100, 101, 102, 124.) Only after Mr. Tilford 
 was confronted with certain books that Mr. Fay, the as¬ 
 sistant comptroller, was compelled to produce, did he 
 admit the scheme of the liquidation and control during 
 this period, but he never produced the transfer books. 
 (Record, vol. 2, pp. 622, 632.) 
 
 The Government also tried to get these transfer 
 books from John Bensinger, who was the transfer 
 agent for the liquidating trustees, in whose possession 
 they last appeared when he left the company about 
 the beginning of 1900, but he had no knowledge of 
 
26 
 
 what had become of them. He turned over all the 
 papers to C. T. White, who succeeded him. (Record, 
 vol. 1, pp. 185-189.) 
 
 White was called as a witness and testified in sub¬ 
 stance that he succeeded Bensinger about the 
 beginning of 1900, and that all the books were turned 
 over to him; that a safe, containing a large number 
 of books, was turned over to him, but he did not 
 examine it; that the safe was removed from the 
 office within a month or two after he came there; 
 and that although he knew Bensinger was the transfer 
 agent whom he was to succeed, the latter did not tell 
 him what papers were in the safe. (Record, vol. 1, 
 pp. 406, 410.) This testimony was taken in the fall 
 of 1907. 
 
 Over a year later, in November, 1908, Mr. John 
 D. Rockefeller and Mr. Archbold were both examined 
 as to the liquidation of this trust, and asked to 
 produce these books, but they never produced them 
 or explained their loss. Neither did they make any 
 claim that they had searched for them, although 
 they were proven to have been in the office in a safe 
 as late as 1900, and were necessarily important- 
 books. Mr. Rockefeller testified (vol. 16, p. 3184): 
 
 Q. Will you make a search or cause a 
 search to be made and see if you can find 
 the original trust certificate books and the 
 stock ledger and stock journal, or certificate 
 ledger and certificate journal, showing the 
 original issue of trust certificates and the 
 transfers thereof down to the time the trust 
 was dissolved ? 
 
27 
 
 Mr. Milburn. I object to that question 
 as relating to a matter not in any way referred 
 to or covered by the direct examination. 
 
 Q. Please answer. 
 
 Mr. Milburn. Now, what is it that Mr. 
 Rockefeller is asked by the question to do? 
 
 Mr. Kellogg. Please read it. 
 
 (The reporter read the question.) 
 
 Mr. Milburn. Mr. Rockefeller, if I may 
 suggest, you certainly will direct that to be 
 done. 
 
 A. I will do anything that I can; but, as 
 I have already stated, I have not been the 
 custodian of such books and papers for over 
 30 years and know nothing about them. 
 
 When Mr. Rockefeller said he had not been the 
 custodian of the papers for over 30 years it was 
 a mere technical evasion. He was president of the 
 trustees throughout the life of the trust, a liqui¬ 
 dating trustee as late as 1899, and confessedly 
 acted for a large number of certificate holders in 
 1899 and 1900, receiving their stock and turning 
 it in to the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, 
 of which he has at all times since been the presi¬ 
 dent. (Defendant’s Exhibit 388; stipulation, vol. 
 17, p. 3665.) 
 
 Again he testified (vol. 16, p. 3186): 
 
 Q. At the time of the dissolution in March, 
 1892, how many trust certificates were there 
 outstanding, in numbers? 
 
 Mr. Milburn. Can’t you state the amount 
 to him? 
 
28 
 
 Q. No; how many individual certificate 
 holders ? 
 
 A. Well, there were a few thousand. I 
 could not tell you how many thousand there 
 were. 
 
 Q. Your books would show that, would 
 they not? 
 
 A. I think they would. 
 
 Q. I would like those books produced show¬ 
 ing that fact, the same books that I asked for 
 before. 
 
 Mr. Archbold, who is now and has been since 1899, 
 vice-president, and a director of the Standard Oil 
 Company of New Jersey, who was a trustee of the 
 Standard Oil Trust and a liquidating trustee, who 
 signed the trust agreements of 1879 and 1882, and 
 who has always been in active management of 
 Standard Oil affairs, testified as follows (vol. 17, 
 p. 3382): 
 
 Q. At the time of the dissolution of the 
 trust there were a large number of holders of 
 trust certificates, were there not? 
 
 A. There were. 
 
 Q. About how many? 
 
 A. I haven't it in mind. 
 
 Q. Did the trustees keep stock-certificate 
 books showing the issue and transfer of the 
 stock from time to time? 
 
 A. They did. 
 
 Mr. Rosenthal. You mean from 1882 to 
 1892? 
 
 Mr. Kellogg. Yes; from 1882 to 1892. 
 
 Witness. They did. 
 
Mr. Rosenthal. Transfer of the certificates, 
 you mean ? 
 
 Mr. Kellogg. Yes. 
 
 Q. Those books were the ordinary certifi¬ 
 cate books and trust-certificate journals or 
 ledgers, weren’t they? 
 
 A. I suppose they were. 
 
 Q. And they showed from time to time the 
 owners of those various trust certificates ? 
 
 A. Undoubtedly. 
 
 Q. Have you those books? 
 
 A. I have not. 
 
 Q. Do you know where they are? 
 
 A. I do not. 
 
 Q. Have you ever looked for them? 
 
 A. I have not. 
 
 Q. Did you know a year ago that the Gov¬ 
 ernment was trying to get hold of these 
 books? 
 
 A. I don’t remember particularly about it. 
 
 Q. Do you know that various witnesses 
 were asked about those books and that they 
 could not find them? 
 
 A. I think I have heard the matter referred 
 to. 
 
 Q. Have you made inquiries to see if you 
 could find them? 
 
 A. I have not. 
 
 Q. Will you do so? 
 
 A. I will, with pleasure. I know of no rea¬ 
 son on earth why you should not have them. 
 
 Q. Well, I don’t either; but we have not 
 been able to get them for the last year. 
 
 A. You have not tried to, have you? 
 
 Q. Oh, yes. 
 
Mr. Rosenthal. You have not tried by any 
 proper method. 
 
 Mr. Kellogg. We have asked every person 
 who has been on the stand who is supposed 
 to know anything about it. 
 
 A week or so later when Mr. Archbold was again 
 on the stand and was asked to produce the books, 
 he did not even claim that he had made a search for 
 them. The conversation which took place between 
 the witness, his counsel, and counsel for the Govern¬ 
 ment, is as follows (vol. 17, p. 3652): 
 
 Mr. Kellogg. No. 6: Produce the trust 
 certificate books and trust certificate journal 
 and ledger, showing the issuance and transfer 
 of all certificates issued by the trustees. 
 
 Mr. Milburn. Well, the same answer to 
 that, Mr. Kellogg. 
 
 Mr. Kellogg. There hasn’t been any an¬ 
 swer to that, Mr. Milburn. 
 
 Mr. Milburn. If it is found it will be pro¬ 
 duced. 
 
 Mr. Kellogg. The question is, Has it been 
 found ? 
 
 Mr. Milburn. It would certainly be re¬ 
 ported to me if it had been. Mr. Archbold 
 answered that; that he would direct a search 
 to be made, and that he hadn’t the remotest 
 idea why it should not be produced, so far as 
 anything that it contained. 
 
 Mr. Milburn does not state that a search was made 
 and the records could not be found, and no witness 
 explains their absence. 
 
31 
 
 It is perfectly evident from this record that every 
 possible means to cover up the transactions and the 
 list of stockholders during this liquidation period 
 was resorted to by the defendants and their counsel. 
 However, a partial list of the persons to whom stock 
 was issued in the Standard Oil Company of New 
 Jersey in exchange for stock in the 20 subcompa¬ 
 nies was furnished. (Defendant’s Exhibit 388, in 3 
 sheets, record, vol. 19, p. 894.) This list contains 
 the names of 112 individuals. It is stipulated, how¬ 
 ever, that this was not a complete list of the persons 
 who so exchanged their stock, and that a large num¬ 
 ber of the shares appearing in the name of Mr. Rocke¬ 
 feller and Mr. Flagler were not owned by them, but 
 belonged to various holders of trust certificates, who, 
 to avoid inconvenience, had placed their certificates 
 in the hands of these gentlemen. (Stipulation, vol. 
 17, p. 3665.) 
 
 (3) It therefore appears that the shareholders were 
 not always the same, nor anywhere near the same, and 
 that the Government exhausted every reasonable 
 means to procure the complete list. It is incon¬ 
 ceivable that some one connected with the Standard 
 Oil Company could not have explained their loss, 
 but no explanation was made. The record in this 
 case is full of just such evasions, and their claim 
 that there were the same shareholders during all 
 these years not only has no evidence to sustain 
 it, but is disproved by the facts above set forth. 
 The fact is that during these years the presiding 
 genius who successively organized these illegal 
 
 72719—11-3 
 
32 
 
 trusts for the purpose of evading the law was Mr. 
 John D. Rockefeller, and that the only persons who 
 have been with him and acting with him during all 
 these years were John D. Archbold, Henry H. Rogers, 
 Wm. Rockefeller, Oliver H. Payne, Henry M. Flag¬ 
 ler, and C. M. Pratt. These men never owned a 
 majority of the stock in any of the trusts or combi¬ 
 nations. 
 
 IV. 
 
 What is monopoly under the second section of the 
 
 antitrust act? 
 
 \ 
 
 (1) It is argued by counsel for appellants that the 
 inhibitions of this section run against the unlawful 
 means used to acquire the monopoly; that acquired 
 monopoly is not declared illegal, but only the means 
 by which it has been acquired; that monopoly at 
 common law meant excluding one from a lawful 
 employment by unlawful means; that the purchase 
 of all the corporations engaged in a business is the 
 exercise of a lawful right and therefore can not be an 
 unlawful act of monopoly. One counsel (Watson, 
 original brief, p. 264; revised brief, pp. 157, 159, 
 187) goes so far as to say that the means of exclu¬ 
 sion must be those which are declared unlawful by 
 Federal statute; that is, the acts in and of themselves 
 must be specifically declared unlawful. Here we 
 have, then, the substance of the various claims. 
 Let us consider them. 
 
 (2) Originally monopoly meant a grant by sovereign 
 power of the exclusive right to carry on any employ- 
 
33 
 
 ment. The only act of exclusion was the grant 
 itself. If the grant was void then there was no 
 monopoly. These monopolies were common in all 
 monarchical countries. They were unlawful because, 
 as said bv Lord Coke, 
 
 All trades, as well mechanical as others, 
 which prevent idleness (the bane of the Com¬ 
 monwealth) and exercise men and youth in 
 labour, for the maintenance of themselves and 
 their families * * * are profitable to the 
 Commonwealth; and therefore * * * 
 
 The sole trade of any mechanical artifice, 
 or any other monopoly is not only a damage 
 and prejudice to those who exercise the same 
 trade, but also to all other subjects. 
 
 The result of monoply he pointed out was (i. e .): 
 
 It tends to the impoverishment of divers 
 artificers and others who before, by the labor 
 of their hands in their art or trade, had main¬ 
 tained themselves and their families, who now 
 will of necessity be constrained to live in 
 idleness and beggary * * * (11 Coke 
 
 R., 84b.) 
 
 Such monopolies were “ against the common law 
 and the benefit and liberty of the subject.” (Slaugh¬ 
 terhouse cases, 16 Wall., 103.) 
 
 (3) Admitting the limited meaning of the word 
 under the early English decisions, it came to have a 
 broader meaning under the common law in later 
 days and especially in the United States. There 
 being, of course, no such thing in this country as an 
 absolute monopoly by grant of Congress or of the 
 
34 
 
 legislatures (other than patent rights and copyrights 
 limited in duration), the legislation of Congress was 
 not directed against monopoly granted by law. We 
 must, therefore, seek other authority for the meaning 
 of the word monopoly. And, in order to arrive at 
 what Congress intended by the act of 1890, it is 
 important to understand the history of the times and 
 the general understanding of monopoly as defined 
 by the courts and by political economists. 
 
 In all of the trust cases—by which we mean cases 
 where trusts like the Standard Oil Trust of 1882 
 came before the court—combinations were held to 
 be illegal because they tended to create monopolies. 
 (State v. Standard Oil Co ., 49 0. St., 137; People v. 
 North River Sugar Refining Co ., 54 Hun, 354; State 
 v. Nebraska Distilling Co., 29 Nebr., 700; Distilling 
 <Sc Cattle Feeding Co. v. People, 156 Ill., 448; National 
 Lead Co. v. Grote Paint Store Co., 80 Mo. App., 247.) 
 
 In the North River Sugar Refining Co. case the 
 court said (p. 377): 
 
 Any combination the tendency of which is 
 to prevent competition in its broad and general 
 sense and to control and thus at will enhance 
 * prices to the detriment of the public is a legal 
 monopoly. 
 
 In the case of Alger v. Thacher (19 Pick., 51) the 
 Supreme Court of Massachusetts had under considera¬ 
 tion a bond conditioned that the obligor should not 
 carry on the business of founding iron. The court 
 said that this was void because it tended to monopoly. 
 
35 
 
 They expose the public to all the evils of 
 monopoly. And this especially is applicable 
 to wealthy companies and large corporations, 
 who have the means, unless restrained by law, 
 to exclude rivalry, monopolize business, and 
 engross the market. (P. 54.) 
 
 In People v. Chicago Gas Trust (130 Ill., 268), 
 where one corporation bought the stock of another 
 gas company, the court said (pp. 293, 295): 
 
 Whatever tends to create a monopoly is 
 unlawful as being contrary to public policy. 
 * * * If contracts and grants whose ten¬ 
 dency is to create monopolies are void at 
 common law, then where a corporation is 
 organized under a general statute, a provision 
 in the declaration of its corporate purposes 
 the necessary effect of which is the creation 
 of a monopoly, will also be void. 
 
 In Salt Co. v. Guthrie (35 Ohio St., 666), where 
 certain salt manufacturers agreed between them¬ 
 selves to regulate the price of salt and sell at a price 
 fixed by a committee, the court said (p. 672): 
 
 The clear tendency of such an agreement 
 is to establish a monopoly and to destroy 
 competition in trade, and for that reason, 
 on grounds of public policy, courts will not 
 aid in its enforcement. 
 
 In Chapin v. Brown (83 Iowa, 156), where all the 
 grocery men in town, in order to avoid a trade in 
 butter which was burdensome, agreed not to buy 
 except for use in their own families, so as to throw 
 the business to one person, it was held that the 
 agreement tended to create a monopoly. 
 
36 < 
 
 In Richardson v. Buhl (77 Mich., 632), the Supreme 
 Court of Michigan held that a combination formed 
 by organizing a corporation and purchasing the 
 large percentage of the match manufacturing con¬ 
 cerns was illegal at common law because it tended 
 to monopoly. The court said (p. 658): 
 
 Monopoly in trade or in any kind of busi¬ 
 ness in this country is odious to our form 
 of government. * * * All combinations 
 among persons or corporations for the pur¬ 
 pose of raising or controlling the prices of 
 merchandise, or any of the necessaries of 
 life, are monopolies and intolerable, and ought 
 to receive the condemnation of all courts. 
 
 In Craft v. McConoughy (79 Ill., 346), four separate 
 grain dealers in Rochelle entered into articles of 
 agreement for one year, each agreeing to carry on 
 their separate business “as though there was no 
 partnership in appearance, keep their own accounts, 
 pay their own expenses, ship their own grain, and 
 furnish their own funds to do business,” the common 
 profits, however, to be divided in shares. The 
 court held that this was an attempt “to control 
 and monopolize the entire grain trade of the town 
 and surrounding country.” The court said (p. 350): 
 
 The laws of trade, in connection with the 
 rigor of competition, was all the guaranty the 
 public required, but the secret combination 
 created by the contract destroyed all competi¬ 
 tion and created a monopoly against which the 
 public interest had no protection. 
 
37 
 
 In the case of Central Railroad Co. v. Collins (40 
 Ga., 582) the Supreme Court held that the Cen¬ 
 tral of Georgia could not purchase a large amount of 
 the stock (less than a majority) in a competing 
 road, because it would tend to give it a monopoly, 
 and was therefore against public policy (628 to 631 
 of the opinion). The court said (p. 630): 
 
 A colossal enterprise, assured of handsome 
 dividends by the possession of a monopoly, 
 may well rest upon its position, knowing that 
 however the country may suffer from its exac¬ 
 tions, its own profits are secure. It is the 
 rivalry of opposing interests, the struggle for 
 success, nay, even for life, with dangerous 
 opposition, that gives life, enterprise, and suc¬ 
 cess to railroads as to other human under¬ 
 taking. 
 
 See other decisions in volume 1 of our brief. 
 
 These cases were decided before the Sherman Act 
 was passed, and defined monopoly at common law 
 as it was understood and existed in this country. 
 They embrace trusts like the Standard Oil Trust; 
 agreements fixing prices, dividing territory, or limit¬ 
 ing production, thereby tending to enhance or con¬ 
 trol the price of products; general agreements restrain¬ 
 ing individuals from engaging in any employment 
 except as incident to the sale of property; purchases 
 by corporations of all or a large proportion of com¬ 
 peting manufacturing or mechanical plants; combina¬ 
 tions of separate businesses in the form of partnership 
 but really for the purpose of controlling the trade; 
 and various other forms of acquiring monopoly. 
 
38 
 
 There was no unlawful exclusion of any one else 
 from doing business in these cases. They show that 
 the term “monopoly” as applied in American juris¬ 
 prudence meant monopoly acquired by mere indi¬ 
 vidual acts, as distinguished from grant of govern¬ 
 ment, although the individual act in and of itself 
 was not illegal; the concentration of business in the 
 hands of one combination, corporation, or person, so 
 as to give control of the product or prices; as said by 
 Mr. Justice McKenna, in the Cotton Oil case, “all 
 suppression of competition, by unification of interest 
 or management.” 
 
 The foregoing case of Craft v. McConoughy well 
 illustrates the argument we make. The pretended 
 copartnership formed between the dealers of the 
 town of Rochelle, while carrying on the business 
 separately, enabled them to control the prices to the 
 detriment of the surrounding country. It was 
 therefore a monopolizing or an attempt to monopo¬ 
 lize a part of the commerce of the State; and the 
 monopolization would have been just as effective had 
 these separate business enterprises been stock cor¬ 
 porations and the stock placed in the hands of a 
 holding company. A similar illustration was the 
 case of Smiley v. Kansas (196 U. S., 447, affirming 
 65 Kan., 240), in which an attempt to control the 
 grain trade of a particular station was held illegal 
 under a state statute. The Standard combination 
 is an attempt to control and monopolize a vast 
 commerce of the entire country, as these people 
 
39 
 
 undertook to control and monopolize a local com¬ 
 merce. 
 
 The term “monopoly,” therefore, as used in the Sher¬ 
 man Act was intended to cover such monopolies or 
 attempts to monopolize as were known to exist in 
 this country; those which were defined as illegal at 
 common law by the States, when applied to intrastate 
 commerce, and those which were known to the Con¬ 
 gress when the act was passed. The monopoly most 
 commonly known in this country, and which the 
 debates in Congress show were intended to be pro¬ 
 hibited by the act, were those acquired by combina¬ 
 tion (by purchase or otherwise) of competing con¬ 
 cerns. The purchase of a competitor, as a separate 
 transaction standing alone, was the exercise of a law¬ 
 ful privilege, not in and of itself unlawful at common 
 law nor prohibited by statute, yet in the Northern 
 Securities case the purchase of stock in a railway was 
 held to be illegal when done in pursuance of a scheme 
 of monopoly. 
 
 (4) It is not necessary in this case, and we doubt 
 whether in any case it is possible, to make a compre¬ 
 hensive definition of monopoly which will cover every 
 case that may arise. It is sufficient if the case at bar 
 clearly comes within the provisions of this act. We 
 believe that the defendants have acquired a monopoly 
 by means of a combination of the principal manufac¬ 
 turing concerns through a holding company; that 
 they have, by reason of the very size of the combina¬ 
 tion, been able to maintain this monopoly through 
 unfair methods of competition, discriminatory freight 
 
40 
 
 rates, and other means set forth in the proofs. If the 
 act did not mean this kind of monopoly, we doubt if 
 there is such a thing in this country. The men who 
 framed the Constitution of this country were familiar 
 with the history of monopolies growing out of acts of 
 the Government. They guarded the people against 
 these by constitutional provisions, but they left open 
 the widest field for the exercise of individual enter¬ 
 prise, and it was the abuse of these personal privi¬ 
 leges, made easy by state laws permitting unlimited 
 incorporation, which gave rise to the evils that con¬ 
 vinced the people of the necessity for the passage 
 of the Sherman antitrust act. It was not monopolies 
 as known to the English common law, but monopolies 
 such as were commonly understood to exist in this 
 country which that act prohibited. 
 
 We do not therefore believe that the only means 
 of securing a monopoly is by excluding persons by 
 unlawful means from engaging in business, much less 
 by such means only as are prohibited by Federal 
 statute. 
 
 (5) As a natural conclusion from the foregoing defi¬ 
 nition of monopoly by appellants’ counsel, they claim 
 that the inhibitions of the second section are against 
 the unlawful means used to acquire the monopoly, 
 but that acquired monopoly is not illegal; therefore 
 that the court can only restrain the means by which 
 the monopoly was acquired, leaving the monopoly 
 to exist. We believe this to be an altogether too re¬ 
 fined construction of the act. If such be the true 
 interpretation, the result would be that one could 
 
41 
 
 combine all the separate manufacturers in a given 
 branch of industry in this country by use of unlawful 
 means such as discriminatory freight rates, but, if not 
 attacked by the Government before it had obtained 
 complete control of the business, its very size, 
 
 with its ramifications through all the States, would 
 
 / 
 
 make it impossible for anyone else to compete, and 
 it could control the price of products in the entire 
 country and would be beyond the reach of the law. It 
 could, by selling at a low price where a competitor 
 was engaged in business and by raising the price 
 where there was no attempt at competition, absolutely 
 control the business without itself suffering any loss; 
 and yet the Government would be powerless to de¬ 
 stroy the monopoly because the unlawful means had 
 been abandoned. That is substantially the position 
 of the defendants in the case at bar. Counsel say, 
 If we have done anything wrong, enjoin us from 
 continuing those acts, but leave us the power of our 
 monopoly thus acquired. 
 
 So far as this case is concerned, we believe the 
 court has power under section 1 to declare illegal 
 the combination, thereby causing the defendants to 
 sever their various corporations. This would destroy 
 the monopoly. But, assuming for the purpose of 
 argument that there was no such combination to be 
 dissolved, the act makes it unlawful for anyone to 
 monopolize or attempt to monopolize interstate or 
 foreign commerce and empowers the Federal courts 
 to prevent and restrain violations of the act. The 
 manufacture, transportation, and sale of oil is a part 
 
42 
 
 of the commerce of the country, and no one can 
 monopolize it except in violation of the act. The act 
 therefore makes unlawful the continuance of the 
 monopoly. The very act of continuing to do all or 
 a dominant part of the commerce in oil by this com¬ 
 bination is an act of monopolizing, and an injunction 
 may prohibit the defendants from continuing to do 
 business until they have ceased monopolizing or 
 attempting to monopolize the commerce in oil by 
 
 terminating the combination of the defendant cor- 
 
 / 
 
 porations and distributing the stocks now held in 
 unified control. 
 
 The discussion of this question is probably aca¬ 
 demic in this brief, because if the defendants are 
 required to dissolve their combination that of itself 
 will stop the monopoly, and when the defendants 
 come to comply with the decree the court has power 
 to decide whether the defendants have ceased the 
 combination and have separated the business into a 
 sufficient number of integral parts to prevent any 
 one of them from being or obtaining a monopoly. 
 
 V. 
 
 Evidence that the defendant companies obtained 
 rebates and discriminatory rates in the transpor¬ 
 tation of their product as against their competitors, 
 and engaged in unfair and oppressive methods of 
 competition, thereby destroying the smaller manu¬ 
 facturers and dealers throughout the country, is 
 material in this case. 
 
 (1) We briefly considered this subject in volume 
 1 of our brief, page 379. Since the argument, 
 
43 
 
 however, a number of cases have been decided or 
 have come to our attention directly bearing upon 
 this question, to which we desire to call the atten¬ 
 tion of the court. 
 
 State of Missouri v. Standard Oil Co., 218 
 Mo., 1. 
 
 State of Minnesota v. Standard Oil Co ., 126 
 N. W. Rep., 527. 
 
 Standard Oil Company v. State of Tennessee, 
 117 Tenn., 618. 
 
 Standard Oil Co. v. State of Tennessee , 120 
 Tenn., 86; same case, 217 U. S., 413. 
 
 State of South Dakota v. Central Lumber Co., 
 123 N. W. Rep., 504. 
 
 Citizens’ Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Mont¬ 
 gomery, 171 Fed., 553. 
 
 State of Nebraska v. Drayton, 82 Nebr., 254; 
 117 N. W. Rep., 769. 
 
 People v. American Ice Co., 120 N. Y. Supp., 
 443. 
 
 (2) We call the attention of the court to the fact 
 that the statement of counsel in their brief that the 
 testimony on this subject offered by the Government 
 in the case at bar was mostly incompetent and im¬ 
 material is absolutely without foundation. They se¬ 
 lected (pp. 172-173, brief of facts) two instances where 
 the Government offered some written evidence which 
 was afterwards not substantiated. These exhibits 
 have not been referred to by the Government in any 
 brief or argument of the case. It is well known to 
 the court that all the testimony can not be put in at 
 once, and we frequently offered documents and after¬ 
 wards substantiated them by competent testimony. 
 
44 
 
 We believe counsel have selected the only two ex¬ 
 hibits which were not afterwards proven. 
 
 Counsel, however, have not hesitated to quote in 
 their briefs, both in this court and in the court below, 
 an exhibit on the subject of unfair competition which 
 was never sufficiently proved. We refer to the sup¬ 
 posed letter of a Mrs. Jones (Deft.’s brief, vol. 2, 
 p. 199), which was never proved by any person who 
 knew the author of the letter or the handwriting 
 thereof or anything about its subject-matter. (Rec- 
 ord, vol. 13, p. 1437.) The matter is unimportant, 
 but is indicative of the character of the defense. 
 
 As to the prices in the various communities, the 
 court will see that we relied principally upon the facts 
 obtained from the Standard Oil Company’s statistical 
 department. 
 
 As to price cutting, counsel state that we only 
 showed 37 towns in which the defendants engaged in 
 local price cutting, while the Standard is doing busi¬ 
 ness in 37,000 towns throughout the United States. 
 We actually proved by witnesses price cutting under 
 the independents in 110 towns; and it must be re¬ 
 membered that in large tracts of country the Stand¬ 
 ard has absolutely eliminated all competition, and the 
 independents are now doing business in but a small 
 number of places. For instance, take the States of 
 Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, and New Mexico, 
 known as the Denver territory: practically every 
 independent has been eliminated. The proof shows 
 that the independents have sold in these States only 
 from two-tenths of 1 per cent to one and one-tenth 
 
45 
 
 per cent of the trade in illuminating oil. Also, take 
 Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and large 
 stretches of country in the South: all competition has 
 been eliminated, and the prices in this territory are 
 abnormally high. The Government’s proof is plenary 
 and is sufficiently reviewed in volume 2 of the brief 
 filed on the former hearing. 
 
 (3) The opinions in some of the cases above cited 
 are exceedingly long, and for the convenience of the 
 court we have extracted the substance thereof. 
 
 In the Missouri case (218 Mo., 1) the Standard Oil 
 Company of Indiana and the Waters-Pierce Com¬ 
 pany were excluded from the State because belong¬ 
 ing to a combination in restraint of trade in violation 
 of the State law. The court, however, considered as 
 bearing upon the question the unfair methods of com¬ 
 petition. It was shown in that case that the State 
 had been divided up between the Waters-Pierce Oil 
 Company and the Standard Oil Company of Indi¬ 
 ana; that the Standard Oil Company held out the 
 Waters-Pierce and the Republic companies as inde¬ 
 pendent, when, as a matter of fact, they were con¬ 
 trolled by it. It was proved also that they were 
 engaged in unfair methods of competition by cutting 
 the prices below a profit where independents were 
 doing business; that they paid rebates to customers 
 of the independents, thereby accomplishing the same 
 thing; that they had obtained from railroads infor¬ 
 mation as to independent shipments, and had used 
 such information for the purpose of destroying the 
 business of the independents. The court held this 
 
46 
 
 evidence material. The testimony in that case was 
 by stipulation of counsel read into the record in the 
 case at bar, and is briefly given in volume 2 of our 
 brief. 
 
 In the case of State v. Central Lumber Co. (South 
 Dakota) (123 N. W. Rep., 504), suit was brought by 
 the State to oust the defendant on the ground that 
 it violated the statute prohibiting intentional dis¬ 
 crimination in prices against particular localities 
 for the purpose of destroying competition, etc. 
 The court held that the statute was constitutional 
 and that the defendant had been guilty of its viola¬ 
 tion, which tended to create a monopoly, and sus¬ 
 tained a judgment ousting the corporation from the 
 State. The court said (p. 509): 
 
 Now he says to a competitor, if such com¬ 
 petitor be weaker than he: “Get out of my 
 way. Sell me your business or I will de¬ 
 stroy it by unfair competition;” or in many 
 cases without giving his victim a chance to 
 sell to him the business he has he sets about 
 destroying it, and by a method as certain as 
 the passing of time, a method that need bring 
 to him not even an immediate financial loss. 
 He puts the price of the commodity handled 
 so low, at the point where his victim is in bus¬ 
 iness, as to make it impossible to meet such 
 price except at a loss, and, to offset what loss 
 he suffers at that point, he raises prices at one 
 or more other points. As soon as this prac¬ 
 tice became quite prevalent, the public real- 
 . ized that an old evil was being brought upon 
 them by a new method; a method that not 
 
47 
 
 only tended as its natural and necessary re¬ 
 sult to place a monopoly into the hands of 
 the strong, but did not, as before, permit the 
 competitor to share in the fruits of the wrong— 
 an evil bringing loss to the public and wrong 
 and injustice to the weak tradesman. Again 
 human experience, recognizing the laws of 
 God and nature, controlled and guided by an 
 aroused public conscience, evolved a new law, 
 and placed it upon the statute books of this 
 and many other States, a law aimed at mo¬ 
 nopolies obtained through unfair competi¬ 
 tion. The question before this court, as it 
 was before the court in case of State v. 
 Drayton (Neb.), (117 N. W., 768), is, Are 
 these laws constitutional as being within the 
 scope of the police powers, or is the State 
 helpless to grapple with and destroy this new 
 evil, because in so doing it will take from the 
 wrongdoer the full enjoyment of right to 
 life, liberty, and property ? We have no 
 hesitancy in saying that this class of legis¬ 
 lation comes directly within the intendment 
 of section 20, article 17, of our Constitution, 
 and that there is nothing in the third point 
 raised by appellant that “This law can not 
 be upheld upon the theory that its purpose and 
 effect is to prevent the establishment of a 
 monopoly.” 
 
 We not only believe it can be upheld upon 
 the above theory, but also that it comes under 
 the scope of proper police regulation as recog¬ 
 nized by the authorities, and this, not only 
 because it is intended, and would naturally tend 
 to prevent a wrong to the public, but because we 
 
 72719—11-4 
 
48 
 
 believe it is inherent in the powers of the State 
 to protect one citizen against “ unfair compe¬ 
 tition” of another citizen, where such “ unfair 
 competition” is used as a means to and with 
 the intent to deprive such other of his rightful 
 enjoyment of property or the use thereof. 
 Can it be held that this evil which threatens 
 the very foundations of our economic system, 
 and through it the very foundations of a free 
 government, can not be reached, for the reason, 
 forsooth, that it interferes with the right of 
 free contract on the part of the individual 
 guilty of the wrongful practice? Bear in 
 mind at all times that this law is aimed only 
 at persons who resort to such “unfair” 
 methods with the “intent” to destroy the 
 business of their competitors. 
 
 Summarizing all we have said herein: The 
 lawmakers of this State, taking notice of a 
 business practice known to all men, and which 
 had grown in rapid strides during past years, 
 until it was threatening the welfare and liber¬ 
 ties of a free people by its tendency to create 
 monopolies in the articles of commerce, thus 
 leaving the consumers the helpless prey to the 
 avarice of the holders of such monopolies, 
 passed the law in question to cure the above- 
 mentioned evil; the law is sufficient in form 
 as a criminal statute, as it set out clearly the 
 acts condemned as wrongful, and forbade the 
 same by providing a penalty for the doing of 
 such acts. 
 
 In the case of Citizens ’ Light, Heat & Power Co. 
 v. Montgomery Light & Water Power Co . (171 Fed., 
 
49 
 
 553) the court, Jones, district judge, held that an 
 injunction would lie to prevent a corporation from 
 interfering with the business of the competitor by 
 procuring the cancellation of the competitor’s orders 
 and the violation of its contracts. The court said, 
 (page 561): 
 
 Hence, while the law allows a trader, by 
 mere solicitation, to persuade customers to 
 change their business relations, without 
 actionable liability therefor, though a broken 
 contract is the result, it does not permit such 
 a solicitor even in the interests of competition 
 to go further, intervening actively between 
 the contracting parties, as a dominant agency 
 in producing a breach, by promise of indem¬ 
 nity to one of them to induce the breach. 
 When the solicitor knowingly and intentionally 
 goes beyond mere solicitation to induce 
 another man’s customer to do business with 
 him, and promises to hold that other man’s 
 customer harmless for the breach of a con¬ 
 tract with him, he transcends the rights of the 
 law of competition, has no “sufficient justifi¬ 
 cation,” and thereby becomes liable to him 
 whose customer is taken over. Such con¬ 
 duct is an unlawful interference with another 
 man’s rights, for which he may maintain an 
 action and recover nominal damages, although 
 the contract be not actually breached in 
 consequence of the solicitation. While there 
 are some authorities to the contrary, the 
 current of authority in this country and in 
 
 England is that— 
 
 “The violation of a legal right committed 
 knowingly is a cause of action, and that it is 
 
50 
 
 a violation of a legal right to interfere with 
 contractual relations recognized by law, if 
 there be no sufficient justification for the 
 interference.” (Quinn v. Leatham, supra, 510; 
 Angle v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 151 U. S., 1; 
 14 Sup. Ct., 240, 38 L. Ed., 55; Martens v. 
 Reilly, 109 Wis., 464, 84 N. W., 840; Rice v. 
 Manley, 66 N. Y., 82, 23 Am. Rep., 30; Bit- 
 terman v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 207 U. S., 205, 
 28 Sup. Ct., 91, 52 L. Ed., 171; Beekman v. 
 Marsters, 195 Mass., 205, 80 N. E., 817, 11 
 L. R. A. (N. S.), 201, 122 Am. St. Rep., 232; 
 South Wales Miners’ Fed. v. Glamorgan Coal 
 Co., Appeal Cases, 1905, p. 239. See also Nims 
 on Unfair Business Competition, pp. 351-371.) 
 
 In the case of Standard Oil Co. v. State (117 Tenn., 
 618; same case, 100 S. W., 705), and Standard Oil 
 Co. v. State (120 Tenn., 86; same case, 110 S. W., 
 565; affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, 217 U. S., 413), the supreme court of Ten¬ 
 nessee affirmed the conviction of the officials and 
 agents of the Standard Oil Company for conspiracy to 
 engage in unlawful competitive practices, and in 
 the latter case the corporation was ousted from the 
 State under quo warranto proceedings for like 
 practices. It was there held that for the Standard 
 Oil Company and its agents in Tennessee to enter into 
 a conspiracy to procure the countermanding of sales of 
 oil by independent oil companies, by giving the 
 merchants certain oil, was unlawful and in violation 
 of the laws of Tennessee, and tended to suppress 
 competition. The Supreme Court of the United 
 
51 
 
 States held that there was no federal question 
 involved, and affirmed the decree. 
 
 In the former case the Supreme Court of Tennessee 
 said (117 Tenn., 646): 
 
 The evidence offered tended to prove an 
 agreement conceived and effected by the 
 Standard Oil Company and its agents to pro¬ 
 tect the oil of the principal then stored in 
 Gallatin from competition with that about to 
 be imported and offered for sale by a com¬ 
 petitor, and not to protect that of the Evans¬ 
 ville Oil Company yet to be transported there. 
 
 But the court held in this case that the only remedy 
 against the corporation was proceedings to oust it 
 from the State, whereupon a suit was brought, and 
 from a judgment ousting the corporation a writ of 
 error was taken to the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, and the judgment affirmed. The Tennessee 
 court said (120 Tenn., 174, 176): 
 
 The tendency of the agreements and arrange¬ 
 ments above referred to, and we think the in¬ 
 evitable purpose, under a fair deduction from 
 the evidence, was to lessen competition with 
 the defendant’s business at Gallatin in respect 
 of the oil it had on storage there and was offer¬ 
 ing for sale. 
 
 »’ > v!/ A 
 
 ^ 
 
 It is said that, while the securing of counter¬ 
 mands is not a proper way to conduct business, 
 yet under the custom of trade a merchant has 
 the right to countermand an order, and hence 
 there is nothing unlawful in making such coun¬ 
 termands. There is evidence of such a cus- 
 
 f 
 
52 
 
 tom in the record, and if the merchants referred 
 to had made those countermands for their own 
 purposes, unmoved by combination or agree¬ 
 ment with a third party—in this case, the de¬ 
 fendant company and Holt and Rutherford— 
 there would have been no ground of action. 
 
 “ The difference, in legal contemplation, be¬ 
 tween individual right and combined action in 
 trade/’ said the court in Bailey v. Master 
 Plumbers, “is seen in numerous cases.” 
 
 In the case of State v. Drayton (82 Nebr., 254) 
 an information was filed against the Atlas Elevator 
 Co., a corporation created under the laws of West 
 Virginia and doing business in Nebraska in the sale 
 and distribution of lumber, lime, plaster, cement, and 
 brick, charging them with violating a statute against 
 local, unfair discriminations by selling a commodity 
 in one place at a lower rate than in another after 
 making due allowance for distance, etc., for the pur¬ 
 pose of destroying a competitor. The court held the 
 statute constitutional, and said (pp. 261, 264): 
 
 It is within the knowledge of all of mature 
 years that within the last quarter or half cen¬ 
 tury the meats furnished the people of our 
 cities and towns were supplied by local dealers 
 who purchased their live stock from the nearby 
 farmer or stock grower, slaughtered the ani¬ 
 mals, and supplied wholesome meats at rea¬ 
 sonable prices, and yet paid remunerative 
 prices for the live animals, saving the cost of 
 transportation to and from what are now the 
 exclusive points of manufacture and produc- 
 
53 
 
 tion. That both the producers and consumers 
 are losers is known to all. That this condition 
 has been brought about by a system of coercion 
 and underselling “for the purpose of destroying 
 the business ” of local competitors is also known 
 to all. Is there no power anywhere lodged in 
 the State to prevent this or remedy the evil'? 
 If there is, it is with the law-making power. 
 If that department of Government has the 
 power, it must be by the exercise of the right 
 of police regulation. Has the legislature that 
 power 1 ? * * * 
 
 If the State has not the power to protect its 
 people from the acts of those who have for 
 their “purpose” the destruction of the busi¬ 
 ness of a competitor in order that the wrong¬ 
 doer may have a monopoly, its powers are 
 much more limited than we had supposed. 
 
 In the case of State of Minnesota v. Standard Oil 
 Co. (126 N. W., 527), suit was brought to forfeit the 
 license of the Standard Oil Company to do business in 
 Minnesota under a statute similar to that before the 
 court in the case last cited. 
 
 Judgment of ouster was sustained in the Supreme 
 Court. The court said (p. 531): 
 
 The public policy, not only of Minnesota 
 but of all the States and the Federal Govern¬ 
 ment, is to restrain monopolies and to encour¬ 
 age competition. Everywhere are found laws 
 prohibiting pools and combinations in restraint 
 of trade. Here we have one of the principal 
 products of petroleum, kerosene, which, it is 
 claimed in the complaint, can be so handled by 
 
54 
 
 a powerful corporation that competition can 
 be stifled without resort to either pool or com¬ 
 bination. The complaint charges defendant 
 discriminates in its prices for the purpose of 
 destroying the business of its competitors, and 
 has and does prevent legitimate competition. 
 We are advised of no other product or article 
 of commerce, except other petroleum oils, as 
 to which such a practice prevails. The demur¬ 
 rer admits these allegations. All these condi¬ 
 tions were before the legislature and furnished 
 the motive for-the legislation. The classifica¬ 
 tion was neither fanciful nor arbitrary, but 
 proper and necessary to meet the peculiar 
 conditions surrounding the distribution of 
 these primary products of petroleum. ( Willis 
 v. Standard Oil Co ., 50 Minn., 290, 52 N. W., 
 652; Otis v. Parker , supra.) 
 
 In the case of People v. American Ice Co. (120 N. Y. 
 Sup., p. 443, not yet officially reported) the defend¬ 
 ant was indicted under the antimonopoly statute of 
 New York for combining to restrain trade and mo¬ 
 nopolize commerce. It appeared that the American 
 Ice Company had purchased a large number of com¬ 
 petitor’s properties, and also the plants and business 
 of a large number of ice dealers in the Borough of 
 Manhattan, and had taken from them a contract not 
 to further engage in the business for ten years. To 
 show the intent which the defendant had in purchasing 
 this property the court permitted the State to show 
 unfair methods of competition in the effort to de¬ 
 stroy competition. In charging the jury the court, 
 Wheeler, J., said (p. 452): 
 
55 
 
 It was within this rule that the court per¬ 
 mitted the prosecution to show in this case 
 the methods employed by the defendant in its 
 efforts to destroy competition and acquire the 
 business of independent ice dealers. The pros¬ 
 ecution was permitted to show that, under 
 instructions from the president of the defend¬ 
 ant, men were sent to follow the wagons of 
 independent retail dealers, to list their cus¬ 
 tomers, and then others were sent to solicit 
 their trade and take it from them by offering 
 to sell ice to them at any price which would 
 secure their patronage and take it from the 
 independent, and thus force the independent 
 dealer to sell his business to the defendant or 
 retire from it altogether. In other words, their 
 testimony was received as tending to show 
 that at the time many of these contracts with 
 restrictive agreements against going into the 
 ice business were obtained the defendant was 
 also endeavoring in other ways to monopolize 
 the field. So, too, the prosecution was per¬ 
 mitted to show as tending to establish an 
 attempt and design to create a monopoly and 
 drive independent dealers out of business, or 
 force them to sell to the defendant so it could 
 handle and control the ice business, that de¬ 
 fendant raised the price of ice at the ice 
 bridges, so that the independent dealer could 
 not pay the price asked and supply his regular 
 customers without doing so at a financial loss. 
 The prosecution claim this was done arbitra¬ 
 rily and without justification. It is very 
 manifest the small dealer could not continue 
 in business under such conditions without 
 
56 
 
 sooner or later becoming bankrupt. It is true, 
 as has been argued by the able counsel for 
 the defendant, that the defendant had the 
 legal right to refuse to sell its ice to the inde¬ 
 pendent competing ice dealer. It had a right 
 to ask such price for its ice as it saw fit, it 
 had the right to go into the district and under¬ 
 sell the independent dealer, but at the same 
 time these acts were permitted to be shown as 
 reflecting and tending to show a design and 
 purpose in one way or the other to drive the 
 independent dealer from the field of competi¬ 
 tion, so that ultimately this defendant would 
 be the sole and only dealer selling ice in the 
 districts in which the independent operated, 
 thereby establishing a monopoly of the ice 
 business in those districts, and thus enabling 
 the defendant to control the price to be asked 
 of the consumer. 
 
 This evidence became very important as 
 throwing strong light upon the question as to 
 whether in making the many contracts taken 
 from independent dealers which contained the 
 restriction that the seller should not enter the 
 ice business for a given number of years, those 
 contracts were made “for the purpose of 
 creating, establishing, or maintaining a monop¬ 
 oly 7 ? as declared illegal by the statute. 
 
 It may be, and often is the case, that tem¬ 
 porary low prices are given to the consuming 
 public for the very purpose of crushing rivals 
 in business to the end of ultimately controlling 
 and raising prices to the permanent disadvan¬ 
 tage of the public. It is for you to say whether 
 such was the object in this case. The court 
 
57 
 
 can not call the jury’s attention to all the evi¬ 
 dence bearing on this subject. It can only 
 reiterate the jury have the right, and it is 
 their duty, to give due weight to every fact 
 and circumstance which throws light upon 
 the purpose with which these restrictive con¬ 
 tracts were obtained. If made “for the pur¬ 
 pose of creating, establishing, or maintaining a 
 monopoly,” then the contracts violate the 
 statute and are illegal. 
 
 And what I have said relative to the con¬ 
 tracts with the independent retail route men 
 also applies to certain other contracts intro¬ 
 duced in evidence in this case. For instance, 
 the contract with Willis A. Winne, made 
 April 26, 1905, whereby Winne sold or 
 leased to the defendant certain ice houses, 
 bridges, and business, and covenanted not to 
 engage in selling ice at retail or wholesale in 
 Greater New York, and like contracts with 
 others not to increase the crop of ice to be 
 harvested. 
 
 In defining monopoly the court said (p. 456): 
 
 What constitutes a monopoly'? The mo¬ 
 nopoly condemned by the statute need not be a 
 complete and absolute one, excluding all com¬ 
 petition—a complete control of the production 
 and sale of a commodity. “A monopoly in the 
 modern sense is created where, as the result of 
 effort to that end, previously competing busi¬ 
 nesses are so concentrated in the hands of a 
 single person or corporation, or in a few persons 
 or corporations acting together, that they have 
 power to practically control prices of a com¬ 
 modity and thus suppress competition.” “A 
 
58 
 
 monopoly exists where all or nearly all of an 
 article of trade or commerce within a com¬ 
 munity or district is brought within the hands 
 of one man or set of men, or of a corporation 
 or set of corporations acting together, so as to 
 practically bring the handling or production 
 of a commodity within such single control, to 
 the exclusion of competition or free traffic 
 therein.” 
 
 Did the defendant effect or attempt to 
 make such an arrangement? If so, it vio¬ 
 lated the statute in attempting to create and 
 maintain a monopoly. Combinations and ar¬ 
 rangements are unlawful the design and effect 
 of which necessarily is to give the party put¬ 
 ting or attempting to put them into execu¬ 
 tion a monopoly more or less for any length 
 of time of the production or sale of a commod¬ 
 ity, or to regulate or control the price of a com¬ 
 modity to insure a pecuniary advantage in re¬ 
 straint of trade which would be injurious to 
 the community. And right at this point we 
 may with perfect propriety say and charge 
 you that such a monopoly as we have defined, 
 or the attempt to create one, need not cover 
 the entire territory of the Borough of Man¬ 
 hattan. If the monopoly sought to be estab¬ 
 lished was one covering a part of the territory 
 of the borough, of one district in the borough, 
 so that the consumers in that portion of the 
 city were deprived of the benefit of free compe¬ 
 tition, then the defendant would be just as 
 guilty as though the monopoly extended to 
 every foot of land within the boundaries of 
 Manhattan. 
 
59 
 
 VI. 
 
 Railroad freight rates. 
 
 The testimony on this subject is sufficiently re¬ 
 viewed in the former brief (vol. 2, pp. 196 to 382). 
 We desire, however, to call the court’s attention to 
 the fact that since the argument of this case the 
 conviction of the Standard Oil Company for receiving 
 concessions in rates from Olean to Vermont points 
 has been affirmed by the unanimous opinion of the 
 Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (See 
 Standard Oil Company v. United States, 179 Fed., 
 617, opinion by Judge Noyes.) The facts on which 
 that case was affirmed are fully proved in the case 
 at bar, and the testimony will be found reviewed in 
 our previous brief, volume 2, page 285 et seq. This 
 court has very recently refused to grant a writ of 
 certiorari to review this judgment. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Growth of competitors of the Standard Oil Company. 
 
 In chapter 12, pages 99 et seq., volume 2, of ap¬ 
 pellants’ brief, they treat of the growth of their 
 competitors. It is true that since the Department 
 of Commerce and Labor commenced its investigation 
 of the Standard Oil Company and exposed its meth¬ 
 ods, and the Government brought suit, the inde¬ 
 pendents have had an opportunity to do business 
 and have grown rapidly. This investigation was 
 commenced in 1904 and the principal increase in the 
 business of the independent manufacturers and deal- 
 
60 
 
 ers has been since that time. But once remove the 
 fear of the law and there is no question that the 
 Standard could and would eliminate these inde¬ 
 pendents, as it has done before. 
 
 There are, however, many inaccuracies in the state¬ 
 ments in their brief: 
 
 (1) It is stated that there are 126 independent 
 refineries. There is no testimony to substantiate 
 this. Mr. Archbold presented a list of what he called 
 11 independent refineries’ 7 (Ex. 277, vol. 19, Rec.). As 
 a matter of fact, there are in this list many repetitions, 
 the National Refining Company being included six 
 times. A large number of these so-called refineries are 
 unimportant compounding works; and most if not 
 all of the refineries in Kansas have been constructed 
 since the bringing of this suit. Archbold admitted on 
 cross-examination that he had no personal knowl¬ 
 edge of the accuracy of this list (vol. 17, Rec., 3436, 
 3438), and it is not substantiated by any other 
 witness. 
 
 (2) The statement of the Standard’s proportion of 
 the consumption of crude oil is absolutely misleading. 
 The Government gives in its brief, with accuracy, 
 the percentage manufactured by the Standard and 
 the percentage by the independents. (Gov. brief, 
 vol. 1, p. 144; Petitioners’ Ex. 394, vol. 8, p. 941.) 
 
 In 1904 the Standard used 56,157,009 barrels out 
 of a total crude oil refined in the United States of 
 66,982,862 barrels. 
 
 The defendant says that in 1906 it manufactured 
 58,924,601 barrels of crude, while the independents 
 
61 
 
 refined “or otherwise utilized and sold” 53,528,855. 
 No one knows better than they that that includes a 
 large amount of crude sold by producers in California 
 and Texas for fuel oil. As a matter of fact, the 
 amount of refinable oil refined and sold by the Stand¬ 
 ard in this country is given by the Government in its 
 brief. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Tank cars. 
 
 It is stated that the Standard Oil Co. has only 
 48 per cent of the tank cars used for the transpor¬ 
 tation of oil in the United States, and all the balance 
 are attributable to competitors. The fact is, the 
 list includes all of the oil tank cars in use—those 
 used by the railroads for transporting crude oil for 
 railway consumption, and those used by persons 
 who are not engaged in the manufacturing business 
 at all but who use them for the transportation of 
 crude oil for fuel purposes. 
 
 IX. 
 
 Competing refineries purchased and dismantled. 
 
 In chapter 3, volume 2, of appellants’ brief, and 
 at various places in the revised brief of Mr. Watson 
 (notably pp. 337, 348), counsel treat of the develop¬ 
 ment of the Standard Oil Company’s business as 
 though it was a natural growth, and they purchased 
 refineries simply to add to their business and increase 
 their capacity. The testimony does not bear out 
 any such claim, as a large number of refineries were 
 purchased and dismantled, some as recently as 1900 
 and 1901. 
 
62 
 
 We have prepared a schedule which we print here¬ 
 with (Appendix C) showing, as far as we are able to 
 do so from the testimony, the purchase or other 
 acquisition of competitors, either through combina¬ 
 tion of stock ownership, or the purchase of stock or 
 properties; the date, the nature of the property, and 
 business, the size and value thereof where it can be 
 furnished, and whether subsequently operated or 
 discontinued. The Government does not pretend 
 that this is a complete list of properties acquired by 
 the Standard; a complete list was demanded of the 
 defendants, but was never produced. 
 
 This schedule shows that the Standard acquired 
 123 refineries (many of which also did a market¬ 
 ing business), 11 lubricating oil works, 1 vaseline 
 works, 24 pipe-line concerns, and 64 exclusively mar¬ 
 keting concerns; a total number of 223. 
 
 Neither did these acquisitions all occur at an early 
 date. About half of them, in number, occurred since 
 1879, and many important ones between 1890 and 
 1902, for instance: 
 
 Scofield, Shurmer & Teagle, competitors of the 
 Standard from a very early date, doing a large market¬ 
 ing business in seven or eight Central and Western 
 States, and owning refineries at Cleveland and Scio, 
 Ohio, purchased in 1901. 
 
 Pacific Coast Oil Company, having a small refin¬ 
 ery, producing properties, pipe lines, and marketing 
 business in California, purchased by the Standard 
 Oil Company of New Jersey in 1900 for $761,000. 
 
63 
 
 Manhattan Oil Company, having a refinery, pro¬ 
 ducing properties, and pipe lines in Ohio and Indiana, 
 and eight or nine hundred tank cars, acquired in 
 1899, value about $2,800,000. 
 
 Indiana Pipe Line and Refining Company, having 
 a large refinery at Kankakee, Ill., just constructed, 
 and 180 miles of new pipe line, acquired at the same 
 time the Manhattan was acquired. 
 
 Argand Refining Company, having a refinery at 
 Marietta, Ohio, purchased in 1898 for about $180,000. 
 
 Crescent Pipe Line Company, having a trunk line 
 from western Pennsylvania to the seaboard; the 
 Mellon gathering lines in the oil fields of western 
 Pennsylvania; and the Crescent refinery at Philadel¬ 
 phia, nearly completed; purchased in 1895. 
 
 National, Schwartz, Western, Mutual, and Inter¬ 
 national refineries at Titusville and Reno, Pa., pur¬ 
 chased in 1895. 
 
 The two large, modern refineries of the Globe 
 Refining companies of Pittsburg and Philadelphia, 
 together with the Western and Atlantic pipe lines, 
 reaching Pittsburg from the oil regions of Pennsyl¬ 
 vania, acquired in 1890 for $1,274,828, in Standard 
 Oil Trust certificates and cash. 
 
 Of the refineries named in.this schedule the testi¬ 
 mony shows about 75 were dismantled. As to a 
 great many of the others purchased there is no spe¬ 
 cific testimony in the record that they were dis¬ 
 mantled, but as a matter of fact most of them were 
 undoubtedly dismantled, as the Standard now has 
 
 72719—11 - 5 
 
64 
 
 all of its refining properties combined into about 20 
 separate works, including in that number the works 
 of the Corsicana and Security companies. (Peti¬ 
 tioner’s Exhibit 393.) 
 
 Of the 17 refineries in Cleveland acquired in 1871 
 and 1872, 12 were immediately dismantled. 
 
 Mr. Archbold testified in 1888 that up to that 
 time they had purchased and dismantled about 50. 
 
 They dismantled the refineries of Scofield, Shurmer 
 & Teagle in 1901, the refinery of the Manhattan Oil 
 Company in 1900, the new refinery of the Indiana 
 Pipe Line & Refining Company in 1900, the refinery 
 of the Argand Refining Company in 1898, and those 
 
 acquired in 1890 and 1895 above named. 
 
 Mr. Watson says (p. 337, revised brief) that only 
 
 four refineries of any importance were purchased be¬ 
 tween 1882 and 1900. There were twenty-six good 
 sized refineries—some of them large ones—purchased 
 and dismantled between 1882 and 1902 ; twenty-two 
 of them during the period in which Mr. Watson says 
 there were only four. (See Appendix C, hereto 
 attached.) 
 
 George W. Wickersham, 
 
 Attorney General . 
 
 Frank B. Kellogg,, 
 
 C. A. Severance, 
 
 Special Assistants to the Attorney General . 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 States having antitrust constitutional and statutory provisions , 
 
 and references thereto. 
 
 ALABAMA. 
 
 Crim. Code, 1907, secs. 7579-7581. 
 
 ARKANSAS. 
 
 Const., 1874, art. 2, sec. 19. 
 
 Kirby’s Digest Ark. Stat., 1904, secs. 1976-1982. 
 
 Acts of 1905, act No. 1. 
 
 CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Civil Code, sec. 1673. 
 
 Stat., 1907, ch. 530. 
 
 FLORIDA. 
 
 Gen. Stat., 1906, title 6, ch. 4 (confined to beef and meats). 
 
 GEORGIA. 
 
 Const., art. 4, sec. 2, par. 4. 
 
 Code, 1895, secs. 5800, 3668. 
 
 Supp., 1901, Code, title 18, ch. 3 (held unconstitutional in 
 Brown v. Jacobs P. Co., 115 Ga., 429). 
 
 IDAHO. 
 
 Const., art. 11, sec. 18. 
 
 ILLINOIS. 
 
 Hurd’s Rev. Stat., 1908, p. 765, secs. 269a, 269b. 
 
 INDIANA, 
 
 Bums’ Anno, Stat., 1908, ch. 21, secs. 3866-3892. 
 
 ( 65 ) 
 
66 
 
 IOWA. 
 
 Code, 1897, secs. 5060-5062. 
 Laws, 1909, ch. 225. 
 
 KANSAS. 
 
 Rev. Stat., 1909, ch. 81. 
 
 KENTUCKY. 
 
 Const., sec. 198. 
 
 Carrolls Stat., 1903, ch. 101. 
 
 LOUISIANA. 
 
 Const., art. 190. 
 
 Wolff’s Rev. Laws, 1904, pp. 1804-1806. 
 
 MAINE. 
 
 R. S., 1903, ch. 47, secs. 53-55. 
 
 MARYLAND. 
 
 Const., Decl. of Rights, art. 41. 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Supp. to Rev. Laws, 1902-1908, p. 511, act of 1907. 
 Laws, 1908, ch. 454. 
 
 MICHIGAN. 
 
 Comp. Laws, 1897, secs. 11377-11383 (act of 1889). 
 Pub. Acts, 1899, act No. 255. 
 
 Pub. Acts, 1905, act. No. 329. 
 
 MINNESOTA. 
 
 Const., art. 4, sec. 35. 
 
 Rev. Laws, 1905, sec. 5168. 
 
 Laws, 1907, ch. 269. 
 
 MISSISSIPPI. 
 
 Const., sec. 198. 
 
 Code, 1906, ch. 145. 
 
 Laws, 1908, ch. 119. 
 
67 
 
 MISSOURI. 
 
 Rev. Stat. ,1909, ch. 98. 
 
 MONTANA. 
 
 Const., art. 15, sec. 20. 
 
 Rev. Pen. Code, 1907, ch. 8 (held unconstitutional in part 
 in State v. Cudahy PJcg. Co., 33 Mont., 181; 82 Pac., 833). 
 
 NEBRASKA. 
 
 Cobbey’s Anno. Stat., 1909, secs. 12028-12049. 
 
 NEW MEXICO. 
 
 Comp. Laws, 1897, secs. 1292-1294. 
 
 Laws, 1907, ch. 18. 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 Birdseye’s Anno. Cons. Laws, 1910, art. 22, pp. 1875-1877; 
 and p. 5747. 
 
 NORTH CAROLINA. 
 
 Const., art. 1, sec. 31. 
 
 Laws, 1907, chs. 218, 219. 
 
 Laws, 1909, ch. 448. 
 
 NORTH DAKOTA. 
 
 Laws, 1907, chs. 258, 259, 260. 
 
 OHIO. 
 
 Bates’ Anno. Stat., 1908, ch. 19a, secs. 4427-1 to 4427-12. 
 
 OKLAHOMA. 
 
 Const., art. 5, sec. 44; art. 9, secs. 41, 45. 
 
 Comp. Laws, 1909, ch. 113. 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA. 
 
 Const., art. 9, sec. 13. 
 
 Crim. Code, 1902, secs. 212-216. 
 
 Civil Code, 1902, secs. 2845-2847. 
 
68 
 
 SOUTH DAKOTA. 
 
 Const., art. 17, sec. 20. 
 
 Comp. Laws, 1908, vol. 2, p. 663, secs. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 Laws, 1909, ch. 224. 
 
 TENNESSEE. 
 
 Const., art. 1, sec. 22. 
 
 Code, 1896, secs. 3185-3191, 6622-6625. 
 
 Laws, 1897, ch. 93. 
 
 Laws, 1903, ch. 140. 
 
 Laws, 1907, chs. 36, 360. 
 
 TEXAS. 
 
 Const., art. 1, sec. 26. 
 
 Supp. Sayles Civ. Stat., 1908, title 108, pp. 437-449. 
 
 UTAH. 
 
 Const., art. 12, sec. 20. 
 
 Comp. Laws, 1907, secs. 1752-1762. 
 
 Const., sec. 165. 
 
 VIRGINIA. 
 
 WASHINGTON. 
 
 Const., art. 12, sec. 22. 
 
 Laws, 1907, ch. 139, sec. 9, relates to commission mer¬ 
 chants only. 
 
 WISCONSIN. 
 
 Stat., 1898, secs. 1747e to 1747g and 1791 j. 
 
 Supp., 1899-1906, secs. 1770g, 1791j, 17911, 1791n. 
 
 WYOMING. 
 
 Const., art. 10, sec. 8; art. 1, sec. 30. 
 
 A convenient summary of these constitutions and statutes 
 will be found in Stimson on Fed. & St. Const., secs. 518, 580, 
 and Noyes on Intercorp. Rel. (2d ed.), ch. 41. 
 
ous 'periods . 
 
 1870 
 
 Stockholders of Standard; 
 Ohio, shortly after its 
 in 1870. 
 
 ;ck of the 20 com- 
 3o. of New Jersey, 
 
 72719 
 
 1907 
 
 Amount of stock in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 
 held on August 19, 1907, by the persons named in 
 the preceding columns. 
 
 Name. (Number of shai 
 given in recorc 
 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Andrews, Samuel. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Brewster, Benj. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Flagler, H. M. 
 
 .... 
 
 28, 000 
 
 Flagler, H. M. 
 
 30, 500 
 
 Handy, T. P. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jennings, Oliver. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Rockefeller, John D. 
 
 .... 
 
 256, 854 
 
 Rockefeller, John D.. 
 
 247,692 
 
 Rockefeller, Wm. 
 
 - - - - 
 
 13, 000 
 
 Rockefeller, Wm... 
 
 11, 700 
 
 Stone, Amasa. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Witt, Stillman. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .... 
 
 8, 000 
 
 Archbold, J. D. 
 
 6,000 
 
 
 
 
 Camden, J. N . 
 
 600 
 
 
 
 3,000 
 
 Hanna, H. M . 
 
 4,000 
 
 
 
 3, 700 
 
 Heye, C. F. G . 
 
 2,514 
 
 
 un- 
 
 " (U. S. T. Co., trustee un- 
 
 
 
 
 der will of.) 
 
 
 
 
 
 Huntington, estate of John.... 
 
 6, 500 
 
 
 
 2, 034 
 
 Hutchins, H. A . 
 
 2, 067 
 
 
 .... 
 
 17, 094 
 
 Lockhart, estate of Chas. 
 
 94 
 
 
 - - - - 
 
 2,000 
 
 
 
 
 .... 
 
 4, 900 
 
 Macy, estate of Josiah. 
 
 4, 900 
 
APPENDIX B.—SHEET L 
 
 Schedule showing changes in the personnel of the owners of the stock in the Standard organization at various periods. 
 
 1870 
 
 1879 ! 
 
 1882 
 
 j 
 
 1892 
 
 1899 
 
 Stockholders of Standard Oil Co. of 
 Ohio, shortly after its organization 
 m 1870. 
 
 Stockholders of Standard Oil Co. of Ohio and 
 various corporations who signed trust agreement 
 of April 8,1879. 
 
 L 
 
 Stockholders of various corporations 
 who signed trust agreement of Jan¬ 
 uary 1,1882. 
 
 Trust-certificate holders who liqui¬ 
 dated in 1892. 
 
 Stockholders who exchanged stock of the 20 com¬ 
 panies for that of Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 
 in 1899-1900. 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 ! 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Andrews, Samuel. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Brewster, Benj. 
 
 Brewster, Benj. 
 
 409 
 
 Brewster, Benj. 
 
 Brewster, Benj. 
 
 
 
 Flagler, H. M. 
 
 Flagler, H. M. 
 
 3, 000 
 
 Flagler, H. M. 
 
 Flagler, H. M. 
 
 Flagler, H. M. 
 
 28, 000 
 
 Handy, T. P. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jennings, Oliver. 
 
 Jennings, O. B. 
 
 818 
 
 Jennings, 0. B. 
 
 Jennings, O. B. 
 
 
 
 Rockefeller, John D. 
 
 Rockefeller, John T) .......... 
 
 S. 984 
 
 Rockefeller, John D. 
 
 Rockefeller John T) 
 
 Rockefeller. John D . 
 
 256, 854 
 
 Rockefeller, Wm. 
 
 Rockefeller. Wm .. 
 
 
 7 
 
 1,600 
 
 Rockefeller, Wm. 
 
 Rockefeller, Wm. 
 
 Rockefeller. Wm 
 
 13, 000 
 
 Stone, Amasa. 
 
 
 
 
 Witt, Stillman. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NEW NAMES. 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 Andrews, W. C... 
 
 990 
 
 Andrews, W. C. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Archbold, John D. 
 
 350 
 
 Archbold, J. D. 
 
 Archbold, J. D. 
 
 Archbold, John D. 
 
 8, 000 
 
 
 Arter, F. A. 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 Bostwick, J. A. 
 
 1, 872 
 
 Bostwick, J. A. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bushnell, D. 
 
 97 
 
 Bushnell, D. 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 Camden, J. N. 
 
 200 
 
 Camden, J. N. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hanna (H M ) . 
 
 ' 
 
 
 Hanna, H. M. 
 
 
 Hanna, H. M. 
 
 3, 000 
 
 
 and 
 
 
 263 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 Chapin (G. W.). 
 
 • 
 
 
 Chapin, G. W. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Harkness, S. V. 
 
 2, 925 
 
 Harkness, S. V. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Harkness, L. G. ... 
 
 178 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Harkness, D. M . 
 
 323 
 
 Harkness, D. M. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Heye, Gustave ... 
 
 178 
 
 Heye, C. F. G. 
 
 
 Heye, C. F. G . 
 
 3, 700 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (U. S. T. Co., trustee un- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 der will.) 
 
 
 
 Huntington, John . 
 
 584 
 
 Huntington, John. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hutchins H A 
 
 111 
 
 Hutchins, H. A. 
 
 
 Hutchins, H. A. 
 
 2, 034 
 
 
 T q vf dins 
 
 1,408 
 
 Lockhart, Chas. 
 
 
 Lockhart, Chas . 
 
 17, 094 
 
 
 \Tr*OiT*orrAV A M 
 
 118 
 
 McGregor, A. M. 
 
 
 McGregor, A. M. 
 
 2,000 
 
 
 XTx v vJ 1 v^vl J ■•••••*** 
 
 Macy, estate of Josiah . 
 
 892 
 
 Macy, estate of Josiah. 
 
 
 Macy, estate of Josiah. 
 
 4,900 
 
 1907 
 
 Amount of stock in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 
 held on August 19, 1907, by the persons named in 
 the preceding columns. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Flagler, H. M. 
 
 Rockefeller, John D 
 Rockefeller, Wm ... 
 
 Archbold, J. D 
 
 Camden, J. N. 
 Hanna, H. M.. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Heye, C. F. G.. 
 
 (U. S. T. Co., trustee un 
 der will of.) 
 
 Huntington, estate of John.. 
 
 Hutchins, H. A. 
 
 Lockhart, estate of Chas. 
 
 Macy, estate of Josiah. 
 
 30, 500 
 
 247, 692 
 11, 700 
 
 6, 000 
 
 600 
 4,000 
 
 2, 514 
 
 6, 500 
 2, 067 
 94 
 
 4,900 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 1 
 
Apr 
 
 m at various periods —Continued. 
 
 
 3 870 
 
 
 
 1907 
 
 
 Stockholders of Standard ( 
 
 k of the 20 com- 
 
 Amount of stock in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 
 
 Ohio, shortly after its orj 
 in 1870. 
 
 o. of New Jersey, 
 
 held on August 19, 1907, by the persons named in 
 the preceding columns. 
 
 Name. (Number of shares 
 
 
 Number of 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 
 given in record.) 
 
 
 shares. 
 
 shares. 
 
 
 
 500 
 
 Macy, W. H., jr. 
 
 909 
 
 
 
 48, 000 
 
 Payne, O. H. 
 
 40, 000 
 
 
 
 500 
 
 Pouch, estate of A. J. 
 
 500 
 
 
 
 50, 000 
 
 Pratt, estate of Charles. 
 
 52, 802 
 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 Pratt, C. M. 
 
 5, 000 
 
 
 » m » 
 
 18, 820 
 
 Rogers, H. H. 
 
 16,020 
 
 
 ... 
 
 1,296 
 
 Thompson, W. P. 
 
 1,762 
 
 
 
 5, 258 
 
 Warden, estate of Wm. G. 
 
 5, 858 
 
 - 
 
 
 800 
 
 Ward well, W. T. 
 
 750 
 
 
 
 1, 358 
 
 York, Julia H. 
 
 1,600 
 
 
 ... 
 
 2, 366 
 
 Auchincloss, Emma B. 
 
 2,366 
 
 
 . . . . 
 
 58, 200 
 
 Harkness, C. W. 
 
 43, 400 
 
 72719—1 
 
 
 2, 366 
 
 Jennings, Annie B. 
 
 2, 373 
 
APPENDIX B. SHEET 2 .—Schedule showing changes in the personnel oj the owners oj the stock i 
 
 3 870 
 
 Stockholders of Standard Oil Co. of 
 Ohio, shortly after its organization 
 in 1870. 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 1879 
 
 
 1882 
 
 1892 
 
 Stockholders of Standard Oil Co. of Ohio and 
 various corporations who signed trust agreement 
 of April 8, 1879. 
 
 Stockholders of various corporations 
 who signed trust agreement of Jan¬ 
 uary 1,1882. 
 
 Trust-certificate holders who liqui¬ 
 dated in 1892. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 
 shares. 
 
 given in record.) 
 
 given in record.) 
 
 new names— continued. 
 
 
 
 
 Macy, W. H. 
 
 59 
 
 Macy, W. H. 
 
 
 Macy, W. H., jr. 
 
 28 
 
 Macy, W. H., jr. 
 
 
 Payne, 0. H. 
 
 2, 637 
 
 Payne, 0. H. 
 
 Payne, 0. H. 
 
 Payne, 0. H., trustee. 
 
 Payne, H. W . 
 
 61 
 
 292 
 
 Payne, 0. H., trustee. 
 
 
 Pouch, A. J. 
 
 178 
 
 Pouch, A. J. 
 
 
 Pratt, Charles. 
 
 2, 700 
 
 Pratt, Charles. 
 
 Pratt, estate of Charles. 
 
 Pratt, C. M. 
 
 200 
 
 Pratt, C. M. 
 
 
 Pratt, H. A. 
 
 15 
 
 Pratt, H. A. 
 
 
 Rogers, H. H. 
 
 910 
 
 Rogers, H. H. 
 
 Rogers, H. H. 
 
 Thompson, W. P. 
 
 132 
 
 Thompson, W. P. 
 
 
 Vandergrift, J. J. 
 
 500 
 
 Vandergrift, J. J. 
 
 
 Warden, Frew & Co. 
 
 485 
 
 Warden, Frew & Co. 
 
 
 Warden, Jos. L... 
 
 98 
 
 Warden, Jos. L. 
 
 
 Warden, Wm. G. 
 
 1,292 
 
 Warden, Wm. G. 
 
 
 Wardwell, W. T. 
 
 78 
 
 Wardwell, W. T. 
 
 NEW NAMES. 
 
 Arter, L. K. 
 
 Bushnell, T. C. 
 
 Davis, Henry L. 
 
 Flagler, Mrs. H. M. 
 
 Harkness, D. M., trustee. 
 
 Wheaton, Louise C. 
 
 York, Julia H. 
 
 1 
 
 NEW NAMES. 
 
 Auchincloss, Emma B. 
 
 Harkness, C. W. 
 
 Jennings, Annie B. 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 2 
 
 the Standard organization at various 'periods Continued. 
 
 1899 
 
 Stockholders who exchanged stock of the 20 com¬ 
 panies for that of Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 
 in 1899-1900. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 --- 
 
 Macy, W. H., jr... 
 
 500 
 
 Payne, 0. H. 
 
 48, 000 
 
 Pouch, A. J. 
 
 500 
 
 Pratt, estate of Charles. 
 
 50, 000 
 
 Pratt, C. M. 
 
 5, 000 
 
 Rogers, II . H. 
 
 18, 820 
 
 Thompson, W. P. 
 
 1,296 
 
 Warden, estate of Wm. G. 
 
 5, 258 
 
 Wardwell, W. T. 
 
 800 
 
 York, Julia H. 
 
 1,358 
 
 Auchincloss, Emma B. 
 
 2, 366 
 
 Harkness, C. W. 
 
 58, 200 
 
 Jennings, Annie B. 
 
 2,366 
 
 1907 
 
 Amount of stock in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 
 held on August 19, 1907, by the persons named in 
 the preceding columns. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Macy, W. H., jr. 
 
 909 
 
 Payne, O. H. 
 
 40, 000 
 
 Pouch, estate of A. J. 
 
 500 
 
 Pratt, estate of Charles. 
 
 52, 802 
 
 Pratt, C. M. 
 
 5, 000 
 
 Rogers, H. H. 
 
 16, 020 
 
 Thompson, W. P. 
 
 1, 762 
 
 Warden, estate of Wm. G. 
 
 5, 858 
 
 Wardwell, W. T. 
 
 750 
 
 York, Julia H. 
 
 1, 600 
 
 Auchincloss, Emma B .. 
 
 2, 366 
 
 Harkness, C. W. 
 
 43, 400 
 
 Jennings, Annie B. . .. 
 
 2,373 
 
APpft' at various 'periods —Continued. 
 
 1870 
 
 Ohio, shortly after its 
 in 1870. 
 
 72719 
 
 
 
 1907 
 
 
 ck of the 20 com- 
 Co. of New Jersey, 
 
 Amount of stock in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 
 held on August 19, 1907, by the persons named in 
 the preceding columns. 
 
 ' 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 
 5, 470 
 
 Jennings, Esther. 
 
 5, 500 
 
 .... 
 
 2, 366 
 
 James, Helen J. 
 
 2,373 
 
 .... 
 
 2,366 
 
 Jennings, Oliver G. 
 
 2, 300 
 
 .... 
 
 2,411 
 
 Jennings, Walter. 
 
 2, 550 
 
 .... 
 
 5,400 
 
 Tilford, Wesley H. 
 
 6,000 
 
 .... 
 
 700 
 
 820 
 
 Alexander, J. H. 
 
 700 
 
 .... 
 
 2, 500 
 
 Bedford, E. T. 
 
 3, 300 
 
 .... 
 
 500 
 
 Bemis, W. E. 
 
 615 
 
 .... 
 
 2, 600 
 
 546 
 
 Bishop, trustees estate of H. R. 
 
 1, 598 
 
 .... 
 
 60 
 
 Bonnell, H. H.. 
 
 Bostwick, A. C.: 
 
 576 
 
 or... 
 
 s: 
 
 1,500 
 
 F. L. & T. Co. trustee for.. 
 
 Bostwick, A. C.: 
 
 1, 500 
 
 • • • • 
 
 1,000 
 
 U. S. T. Co. trustee for— 
 
 Bostwick, A. F.: 
 
 2,217 
 
 •118- 
 
 500 
 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co. trus¬ 
 tee for. 
 
 500 
 
 ■a: 
 
 6,048 
 
 Bostwick, Helen C. 
 
 Bostwick, H. C., and others: 
 
 6,048 
 
 r... 
 
 2,217 
 
 U. S. T. Co. trustee for.... 
 
 2,217 
 
 'US- 
 
 2, 217 
 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co. trus¬ 
 tee for. 
 
 2, 217 
 
 for. 
 
 2, 217 
 
 F. L. & T. Co. trustee for. 
 
 1,000 
 
 .... 
 
 2, 240 
 
 Brewster, Elmina D . 
 
 2, 240 
 
 .... 
 
 2,540 
 
 Brewster, F. F. 
 
 2, 640 
 
 .... 
 
 2, 565 
 
 Brewster, G. S. 
 
 2,565 
 
 .... 
 
 2,540 
 
 Brewster, R. S. 
 
 2, 540 
 
 • • - • 
 
 4,000 
 
 Brokaw, estate of W. Y. 
 
 3, 395 
 
 
 800 
 
 Burke, C. C . 
 
 980 
 
APPENDIX B.—SHEET 3. —Schedule showing changes in the 'personnel oj the owners oj the stock in the Standard organization at various pea cods Continued. 
 
 1070 
 
 1879 
 
 1882 
 
 1892 
 
 1899 
 
 Stockholders of Standard Oil Co. of 
 Ohio, shortly after its organization 
 in 1870. 
 
 Stockholders of Standard Oil Co. of Ohio and 
 various corporations who signed trust agreement 
 of April 8, 1879. 
 
 Stockholders of various corporations 
 who signed trust agreement of Jan¬ 
 uary 1,1882. 
 
 Trust-certificate holders who liqui¬ 
 dated in 1892. 
 
 Stockholders who exchanged stock of the 20 com¬ 
 panies for that of Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 
 in 1899-1900. 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 % 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 I 
 
 
 } 
 
 
 new names— continued. 
 
 Jennings, Esther. 
 
 Jennings, Helen. 
 
 Jennings, Oliver G. 
 
 Jennings, Walter. 
 
 Tilford, Wesley H. 
 
 Total number of trust cer¬ 
 tificates liquidated by the 
 above named 17 persons, 
 494,619 shares, or 50.86 per 
 cent, of the total number of 
 shares outstanding at the time 
 of dissolution. 
 
 The persons who held the 
 remaining 477,881 unliqui¬ 
 dated trust certificates num¬ 
 bered “ several thousand.” 
 (Vol. 16, pp. 3189, 3203; vol. 
 17, p. 3382.) 
 
 Jennings, Esther. 
 
 James, Helen J. 
 
 Jennings, Oliver G. 
 
 Jennings, Walter. 
 
 Tilford, Wesley H. 
 
 NEW NAMES. 
 
 Alexander, J. H. 
 
 Anderson, A. 
 
 Bedford, E. T. 
 
 Bemis, W. E. 
 
 Bishop, H. R. 
 
 Bonnell, G. B. 
 
 Bonnell, H. H. 
 
 Bostwick, A. C.: 
 
 F. L. & T. Co. trustee for... 
 
 Bostwick, A. C., and others: 
 
 U. S. T. Co. trustee for_ 
 
 Bostwick, A. F.: 
 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co. trus¬ 
 tee for. 
 
 Bostwick, Helen C. 
 
 Bostwick, H. C., and others: 
 
 U. S. T. Co. trustee for... 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co. trus- 
 tee for. 
 
 F. L. & T. Co. trustee for. 
 
 Brewster, Elmina D. 
 
 Brewster, F. F. 
 
 Brewster, G. S... 
 
 Brewster, R. S. 
 
 Brokaw, W. Y. 
 
 Burke, C. C. 
 
 5, 470 
 
 2, 366 
 
 2,366 
 
 2, 411 
 
 5, 400 
 
 700 
 
 820 
 
 2, 500 
 
 500 
 
 2, 600 
 
 546 
 
 60 
 
 1,500 
 
 1, 000 
 
 500 
 
 6, 048 
 
 2, 217 
 2, 217 
 
 2, 217 
 
 2, 240 
 
 2, 540 
 
 2,565 
 
 2, 540 
 
 4,000 
 
 800 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 3 
 
 1907 
 
 \mount of stock in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 
 ‘ held on August 19, 1907, by the persons named m 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Jennings, Esther. . 
 James, Helen J.... 
 Jennings, Oliver G 
 Jennings, Walter.. 
 Tilford, Wesley H. 
 
 5, 500 
 2, 373 
 2, 300 
 2, 550 
 
 6, 000 
 
 Alexander, J. H 
 
 700 
 
 Bedford, E. T. 
 
 Bemis, W. E. 
 
 Bishop, trustees estate of H. It. 
 
 3,300 
 615 
 1, 598 
 
 Bonnell, H. H... 
 
 Bostwick, A. C.: 
 
 F. L. & T. Co. trustee for.. 
 
 Bostwick, A. C.: 
 
 U. S. T. Co. trustee for- 
 
 Bostwick, A. F.: 
 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co. trus¬ 
 tee for. 
 
 Bostwick, Helen C. 
 
 Bostwick, H. C., and others: 
 
 U. S. T. Co. trustee for_ 
 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co. trus¬ 
 tee for. 
 
 F. L. & T. Co. trustee for. 
 
 Brewster, Elmina D... 
 
 Brewster, F. F. 
 
 Brewster, G. S. 
 
 Brewster, R. S. 
 
 Brokaw, estate of W. Y 
 Burke, C. C. 
 
 576 
 
 1, 500 
 
 2, 217 
 500 
 
 6,048 
 
 2, 217 
 2, 217 
 
 1,000 
 
 2, 240 
 
 2, 640 
 
 2, 565 
 
 2, 540 
 
 3, 395 
 980 
 
A ton at various 'periods —Continued. 
 
 1870 
 
 
 Stockholders of Standard 
 Ohio, shortly after its 
 in 1870. 
 
 )ck of the 20 com- 
 Co. of New Jersey, 
 
 Name. (Number of shar 
 given in recorc 
 
 . 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 
 i. 
 
 
 
 ,rus- 
 
 1, 500 
 
 
 for.. 
 
 1, 000 
 
 
 . 
 
 500 
 
 
 . 
 
 992 
 
 
 . 
 
 500 
 
 
 . 
 
 200 
 
 
 . 
 
 3,100 
 
 
 . 
 
 20 
 
 
 . 
 
 240 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 2,250 
 
 
 . 
 
 1, 000 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 
 ;rus- 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 
 
 13,077 
 
 
 
 14,000 
 
 
 
 1,195 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 1,300 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 650 
 
 
 
 6,000 
 
 
 
 411 
 
 
 
 11,775 
 
 
 
 400 
 
 72719 
 
 
 
 1907' 
 
 Amount of stock in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 
 held on August 19, 1907, by the persons named in 
 the preceding columns. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Carstairs, F. Bostwick: 
 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co. trus- 
 too for 
 
 F. L. & T. Co. trustee for.. 
 
 Carter, John J. 
 
 Chapin, C. M. 
 
 Cochran, trustees will of W. F. 
 Conley, E. W. 
 
 1, 500 
 1,000 
 300 
 2,184 
 83 
 200 
 
 Dean, Josephine W 
 Donald, Jessie E. . 
 
 240 
 
 80 
 
 Folger, H. C., jr. 
 
 Forbes, D. 
 
 Forbes, Annie H. 
 
 Ford, C. R.: 
 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co. trus¬ 
 tee for. 
 
 Griscom, C. A. 
 
 Harkness, L. Y. 
 
 Harkness, W. L. 
 
 Higgins, C. M. 
 
 Hogg, Annie D. 
 
 Hogg, Chas. B. 
 
 2,145 
 50 
 25 
 
 106 
 
 3,000 
 13,100 
 14,000 
 2,130 
 130 
 1,225 
 
 Hogg, Robt. 
 
 Hollister & Babcock. 
 
 Houston, estate of Anna J 
 Houston, estate of H. H.. 
 Hunt, Helen J. 
 
 525 
 
 5 
 
 381 
 
 11,775 
 
 401 
 
APPENDIX B.—SHEET 4.— 
 
 ■Schedule showing changes in the personnel of the owners oj the stock in the Stand,ard organization at various periods —Continued. 
 
 1870 
 
 1879 
 
 1882 
 
 1892 
 
 1899 
 
 190?' 
 
 Stockholders of Standard Oil Co. of 
 Ohio, shortly after its organization 
 in 1870. 
 
 Stockholders of Standard Oil Co. of Ohio and 
 ^l C 8°% rati0nS W ^° S ^ ne( ^ trust agreement 
 
 ------- 
 
 Stockholders of various corporations 
 who signed trust agreement of Jan¬ 
 uary 1, 1882. 
 
 Trust-certificate holders who liqui¬ 
 dated in 1892. 
 
 Stockholders who exchanged stock of the 20 com¬ 
 panies for that of Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 
 in 1899-1900. 
 
 Amount of stock in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 
 held on August 19, 1907, by the persons named in 
 the preceding columns. 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 new names— continued. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Carstairs, F. Bostwick: 
 
 
 Carstairs, F. Bostwick: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co. trus- 
 
 1, 500 
 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co. trus- 
 
 1, 500 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tee for. 
 
 
 tee for. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 F. L. & T. Co. trustee for.. 
 
 1,000 
 
 F. L. & T. Co. trustee for.. 
 
 1, 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Carter, John J. 
 
 500 
 
 Carter, John J. 
 
 300 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chapin, C. M. 
 
 992 
 
 Chapin, C. M. 
 
 2,184 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cochran, W. F. 
 
 500 
 
 Cochran, trustees will of W. F. 
 
 83 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Conley, E. W. 
 
 200 
 
 Conley, E. W. 
 
 200 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Constable, J. M. 
 
 3,100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Darling, Robt. 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dean, Josephine W. 
 
 240 
 
 Dean, Josephine W... 
 
 240 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Donald, Jessie E. 
 
 80 
 
 Donald, Jessie E. .. 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Fiske, Martha F. 
 
 2, 250 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Folger, H. C., jr. 
 
 1, 000 
 
 Folger, H. C., ir 
 
 2 145 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Forbes, D... 
 
 50 
 
 Forbes, D.. 
 
 50 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Forbes, Annie H. 
 
 25 
 
 Forbes Annie H 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ford, C. R.: 
 
 
 Ford, C. R.: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co. trus- 
 
 100 
 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co. trus- 
 
 106 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tee for. 
 
 
 tee for. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Griscom, C. A. 
 
 1,000 
 
 Griscom. C. A 
 
 3 non 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Harkness, L. V. 
 
 13,077 
 
 Harkness. L V 
 
 Oj U\JU 
 
 iq ion 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Harkness, W. L. 
 
 14,000 
 
 Harkness W L 
 
 XO,IUU 
 
 14 non 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Higgins, C. M. 
 
 1,195 
 
 Higgins C M 
 
 XX, uuu 
 
 9 1qh 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hogg, Annie D. 
 
 100 
 
 Hogg, Annie D 
 
 i an 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hogg, Chas. B. 
 
 1, 300 
 
 Hogg. Chas B 
 
 loU 
 
 1,225 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hogg, Katharine. 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hogg, Robt. 
 
 650 
 
 Hogg Robt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hollister & Babcock. 
 
 6,000 
 
 Hollister & Babcock 
 
 oZo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Houston, Anna I. 
 
 411 
 
 Houston, estate of Anna J. 
 
 0 
 
 381 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 Houston, estate of H. H. 
 
 11,775 
 
 Houston, estate of H. H.. 
 
 11,775 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hunt, Helen J. 
 
 400 
 
 Hunt, Helen J. 
 
 401 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 4 
 
APPI ion at various periods —Continued. 
 
 1370 
 
 Stockholders of Standard Oi 
 Ohio, shortly after its orga J 
 in 1870. 
 
 ock of the 20 com- 
 Co. of New Jersey, 
 
 Name. (Number of shared h 
 given in record.) 
 
 72719— 
 
 ee 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 500 
 2,540 
 400 
 1,092 
 1,000 
 3,000 
 2,076 
 350 
 942 
 
 1,374 | 
 500 
 4,340 
 1,000 
 7,480 
 1,300 | 
 100 
 1,000 
 1,760 
 4,000 
 996 
 400 
 100 
 225 
 95 
 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 5, 341 
 500 
 614 
 
 1907 
 
 Amount of stock in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 
 held on August 19, 1907, by the persons named in 
 the preceding columns. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Jennings, F. B. 
 
 Jennings, Mary B. 
 
 Jewett, W. K. 
 
 Kennedy, John S. 
 
 Ladd, Kate. 
 
 Ladd, W. G. 
 
 Lloyd, Malcolm. 
 
 McAlpin, estate of D. H. 
 
 McCullough, J. G. 
 
 McDonald, Alexander. 
 
 McKinney, Agnes E. 
 
 Macy, V. E. 
 
 Mills, D. O. 
 
 Moffat, Lizzie D. 
 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co., trustee 
 
 O’Day, estate of Daniel. 
 
 Pratt & Co., Chas. 
 
 Robbins, Sarah J. 
 
 Scheide, W. T. 
 
 Seep, Joseph. 
 
 Severance, L. H. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 400 
 2, 600 
 400 
 
 3, 000 
 2,076 
 350 
 942 
 1,400 
 500 
 3,374 
 900 
 7,300 
 721 
 100 
 963 
 2, 655 
 1,312 
 
 400 
 
 1,000 
 
 600 
 
 7,440 
 
*■ . 
 
 APPENDIX B. SHEET 5. Schedule showing changes in the 'personnel oj the owners oj the stock in the Standard organization at various periods —Continued. 
 
 
 * 
 
 . * 
 
 > * 
 
 xsvo 
 
 Stockholders of Standard Oil Co. of 
 Ohio, shortly after its organization 
 in 1870. 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 1879 
 
 1883 
 
 1893 
 
 1899 
 
 Stockholders of Standard Oil Co. of Ohio and 
 various corporations who signed trust agreement 
 of April 8, 1879. 
 
 Stockholders of various corporations 
 who signed trust agreement of Jan¬ 
 uary 1, 1882. 
 
 Trust-certificate holders who liqui¬ 
 dated in 1892. 
 
 Stockholders who exchanged stock of the 20 com¬ 
 panies for that of Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 
 in 1899-1900. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 
 
 
 
 new names— continued. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jennings, F. B. 
 
 500 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jennings, Mary B. 
 
 2,540 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jewett, W. K. 
 
 400 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jones, Salome M. 
 
 1,092 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kenan, Mary L. 
 
 1,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kennedy, John S. 
 
 3,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ladd, Kate M. 
 
 2,076 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ladd, W. G. 
 
 350 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lloyd, Malcolm. 
 
 942 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 McAlpin, D. H. 
 
 1,374 
 
 
 
 
 
 McCullough, J. G. 
 
 500 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 McDonald, Alexander. 
 
 4,340 
 
 
 
 
 
 McKinney, Agnes E. 
 
 1,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 Macy, Y. E. 
 
 7,480 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mills, D. O. 
 
 1,300 
 
 
 
 
 
 Moffat, Lizzie D. 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co., trustee.. 
 
 1,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 O’Day, Daniel. 
 
 1,760 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 - 
 
 Pratt & Co., Clias. 
 
 4,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 Preston, Elizabeth T. 
 
 996 
 
 
 
 
 
 Robbins, Sarah J. 
 
 400 
 
 
 
 
 
 Robins, F. F. 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sandford, J. W. 
 
 225 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sandford, W. M. 
 
 95 
 
 
 
 
 
 Scheide, W. T. 
 
 1,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 Seep, Joseph. 
 
 1,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 Severance, L. H. 
 
 j 
 
 5,341 
 
 
 
 
 
 Smith, G. W. 
 
 500 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sterling, C. A. 
 
 614 ! 
 
 1907 
 
 Amount of stock in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 
 held on August 19, 1907, by the persons named in 
 the preceding columns. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Jennings, F. B. .. 
 Jennings, Mary B 
 Jewett, W. K. ... 
 
 400 
 2, 600 
 400 
 
 Kennedy, John S. 
 
 Ladd, Kate. 
 
 Ladd, W. G. 
 
 Lloyd, Malcolm. 
 
 McAlpin, estate of D. H. 
 
 McCullough, J. G. 
 
 McDonald, Alexander. 
 
 McKinney, Agnes E. 
 
 Macy, Y. E. 
 
 Mills, D. O. 
 
 Moffat, Lizzie D. 
 
 N. Y. L. I. & T. Co., trustee.. 
 
 O’Day, estate of Daniel. 
 
 Pratt & Co., Clias. 
 
 3,000 
 2,076 
 350 
 942 
 1,400 
 500 
 3, 374 
 900 
 7,300 
 721 
 100 
 963 
 2, 655 
 1, 312 
 
 Robbins, Sarah J 
 
 400 
 
 Scheide, W. T.. 
 Seep, Joseph.... 
 Severance, L. H 
 
 1,000 
 
 600 
 
 7,440 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 5 
 
appen: 
 
 i at various periods —Continued. 
 
 1870 
 
 
 1907 
 
 Stockholders of Standard Oil Co 
 Ohio, shortly after its organiza 
 in 1870. 
 
 . of the 20 com- 
 . of New Jersey, 
 
 Amount of stock in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 
 held on August 19, 1907, by the persons named in 
 the preceding columns. 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held 
 given in record.) 
 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 
 
 850 
 
 Stillman, James. 
 
 78 
 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1,396 
 
 
 
 
 
 1,113 
 
 Thompson, L. S. 
 
 2,725 
 
 
 
 600 
 
 Tilford, Catharine N. 
 
 600 
 
 
 
 2,478 
 
 Usmar, J. H. 
 
 2,578 
 
 
 
 200 
 
 Vaillant, Maria I. 
 
 200 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 Welling, C. E. 
 
 50 
 
 
 
 350 
 
 Wheeler, T. H. 
 
 1,375 
 
 
 
 1,500 
 
 Willets, Howard. 
 
 890 
 
 
 
 648 
 
 Wood, Howard. 
 
 648 
 
 
 1. 
 
 
 
 
 
 i • • 
 
 185,943 
 
 
 
 
 i • • 
 
 80, 680 
 
 
 
 Total number shares... 10, 
 
 
 
 Total stock outstanding. 
 
 983,383 
 
 
 ► • « 
 
 972,492 
 
 
 
 Total number of stockhoh 
 
 Is 
 
 
 Approximate number of stock- 
 
 
 of Standard Oil Co. of Obi 
 
 £ 
 
 
 holders,. 
 
 5,150 
 
 
 ;h 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 ... 
 
 112 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Number of stockholders in list 
 
 
 
 
 
 above,. 
 
 96 
 
 
 
 
 Number of shares held by 
 
 
 
 
 
 stockholders listed above,... 
 
 647,640 
 
 
 
 
 Percentage of outstanding 
 
 
 
 
 
 stock held by holders listed 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 above,. 
 
 65. 8% 
 
 References: Rockefeller, 
 
 X- 
 
 
 Reference: Defendant’s Ex- 
 
 
 16, pp. 3054, 3055, 3062. 
 
 7, 
 
 
 hibit 1. 
 
 
 72719—11. 
 
 
APPENDIX B.—SHEET 6. —Schedule showing changes in the 'personnel oj the owners oj the stock in the Standard organization at various periods Continued. 
 
 1870 
 
 Stockholders of Standard Oil Co. of 
 Ohio, shortly after its organization 
 in 1870. 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 Total number shares... 10, 000 
 
 Total number of stockholders 
 of Standard Oil Co. of Ohio, 9. 
 
 References: Rockefeller, vol. 
 16, pp. 3054, 3055, 3062. 
 
 1879 
 
 1882 
 
 Stockholders of Standard Oil Co. of Ohio and 
 various corporations who signed trust agreement 
 of April 8,1879. 
 
 Stockholders of various corporations 
 who signed trust agreement of Jan¬ 
 uary 1, 1882. 
 
 Name. 
 
 N umber of 
 shares. 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 
 : 
 
 - 
 
 Total number shares. 
 
 35, 000 
 
 Total number shares. 700,000 
 
 Total number of persons whose 
 stocks or interests were 
 placed in the trust of 1879,.. 
 
 37 
 
 Total number of persons whose 
 stocks or interests were 
 placed in the trust of 1882, 42. 
 
 References: Defendant’s Ex¬ 
 hibit 257; Rockefeller, vol. 16, 
 pp. 3097, 3098. 
 
 
 References: Trust agree¬ 
 
 ment of 1882, Record, vol. A, 
 pp. 21-31; admitted, ans., vol. 
 A, p. 480. 
 
 1893 
 
 1899 
 
 
 Trust-certificate holders who liqui¬ 
 dated in 1892. 
 
 Stockholders who exchanged stock of the 20 com¬ 
 panies for that of Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 
 in 1899-1900. 
 
 Name. (Number of shares held not 
 given in record.) 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 
 new names— continued. 
 
 
 
 Stillman, James. 
 
 850 
 
 
 Stone, Chas . 
 
 1,000 
 
 
 Thompson, estate of M. E. 
 
 1,396 
 
 
 Thompson, L. S. 
 
 1,113 
 
 
 Tilford, Catharine H. 
 
 600 
 
 
 Usmar, J. H. 
 
 2,478 
 
 
 Vaillant, Maria I . 
 
 200 
 
 
 Welling, C. E. 
 
 50 
 
 
 Wheeler, T. H. 
 
 350 
 
 
 Willets, Howard. 
 
 1, 500 
 
 
 Wood, Howard. 
 
 Exchange stock (see brief, vol. 
 
 1, pp. 58-60): 
 
 648 
 
 
 By J. D. Rockefeller. 
 
 185,943 
 
 
 By H. M. Flagler. 
 
 80,680 
 
 Total number trust certifi- 
 
 Total number shares ex- 
 
 
 co+pf 3 .972 500 
 
 changed,.-. 
 
 972, 492 
 
 
 
 Total number of trust certifi- 
 
 Total number of individuals 
 
 
 cate holders, “several thou- 
 
 listed above who exchanged 
 
 
 sand.” 
 
 their stock directly with 
 the Standard Oil Co. of New 
 
 
 
 Jersey,. 
 
 1 
 
 112 
 
 References: Tilford, vol. 1, 
 
 References: Defendant’s Ex- 
 
 
 p. 136; Fay, vol. 2, p. 604; 
 
 hibit 388; stipulation, vol. 17, 
 
 
 Rockefeller, vol. 16, p. 3189, 
 3203; Archbold, vol. 17, p. 
 3382; Petitioner’s Exhibit 256. 
 
 p. 3665. 
 
 
 1907 
 
 Amount of stock in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 
 held on August 19, 1907, by the persons named m 
 the preceding columns. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Number of 
 shares. 
 
 Stillman, James. 
 
 78 
 
 Thompson, L. S. 
 
 2,725 
 
 Tilford, Catharine N. 
 
 600 
 
 Usmar, J. H. 
 
 2, 578 
 
 Vaillant, Maria I. 
 
 200 
 
 Welling, C. E. 
 
 50 
 
 Wheeler, T. H. 
 
 1,375 
 
 Willets, Howard. 
 
 890 
 
 Wood, Howard. 
 
 648 
 
 Total stock outstanding. 
 
 983, 383 
 
 Approximate number of stock- 
 
 
 holders,. 
 
 5,150 
 
 Number of stockholders in list 
 
 
 above,. 
 
 96 
 
 Number of shares held by 
 
 
 stockholders listed above,_ 
 
 647, 640 
 
 Percentage of outstanding 
 
 
 stock held by holders listed 
 
 
 above,. 
 
 65.8% 
 
 Reference: Defendant’s Ex- 
 
 
 hibit 1. 
 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 6 
 
1 ompany of Ohio in 1870. 
 
 (D 
 
 Year. 
 
 1871-72 
 
 1873 
 
 1874 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 ! were thereafter oper- 
 r dismantled. 
 
 Clark, I. 
 
 Alexanc 
 Westlak' 
 ! Clark, !: 
 Hanna, 
 Doane < 
 Stewart’ 
 Critchlc 
 Case & 
 Short, 
 Harmor 
 Joseph 
 Braineif 
 F. Q. 
 Kellogg 
 Henry 
 
 A. M. 1 
 
 Long If. 
 
 Chess-d" 
 
 Charles' 
 
 Devoe 
 
 Imperi 
 
 Standa 
 
 72 
 
 mantled; market- 
 ;ss continued. 
 
 1901-02. 
 
 (7) 
 
 References. 
 
 16:3064, 3138, 3160, 3161. (See brief, vol. 
 l,p. 22.) 
 
 16:3064,3138,3159,3161; 6:2625. 
 16:3138,3159,3161; 6:2626. 
 16:3138,3159,3161; 6:2625. 
 16:3138,3159,3161; 6:2626. 
 
 6:2625; 16:3138. 
 
 16:3138,3159; 6:2626. 
 
 16:3138,3159; 6:2625. 
 
 6:2626; 16:3138. 
 
 16:3138,3159; 6:2626. 
 
 16:3138,3159; 6:2626. 
 
 16:3138,3159; 6:2625. 
 
 16:3138,3159; 6:2626. 
 
 16:3138,3159; 6:2626. 
 
 16:3138,3160; 6:2626. 
 
 16:3138,3160; 6:2626. 
 
 16:3138, 3160. 
 
 { 
 
 16:3075, 3172; 19:618, 821. (See brief, 
 vol. 1, p. 23.) 
 
 16:3077, 3163; 17:3270, 3359; 19:677, 759, 
 760. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 28.) 
 
 { 
 
 16:3079, 3081, 3151, 3167; 17:3264; 19 :618, 
 674, 742. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 24.) 
 
 { 
 
 16:3076, 3161; 17:3275; 19:618, 679, 792, 
 (See brief, vol. 1, p. 23.) 
 
 16:3077-79, 3163; 17:3263, 3353; 19:673, 
 735, 739. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 25.) 
 
 { 
 
 6:2630; 16:3080, 3168; 17:3264; 19:618, 
 675, 747. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 24.) 
 
APPENDIX C.—SHEET 1. 
 
 7 artial list o f concerns combined with or acquired by Standard Oil interests since the organization of the Standard Oil Company oj Ohio in 1870. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1871-72 
 
 1873 
 
 1874 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 Name. 
 
 Alexander Scofield & Co. 
 Westlake, Hutchins & Co. 
 
 Clark, Shurmer & Co_ 
 
 Hanna, Baslington & Co.. 
 
 Doane & Co. 
 
 Stewart & Arter. 
 
 Critchley, Fawcett & Co. 
 
 Case & Reynolds. 
 
 Short, Neill & Co. 
 
 Harmon, Borne & Co. 
 
 Joseph Stanley. 
 
 Brainerd, Barkwell & Co. 
 
 F. Q. Barstow & Co. 
 
 Kellogg, Goodwillie & Co. 
 
 Henry C. Smith. 
 
 A. M. Burk. 
 
 Long Island Refining Co. 
 
 Chess-Carley Co. 
 
 Charles Pratt & Co. 
 
 Devoe Manufacturing Co. 
 
 Imperial Refining Co 
 
 (3) 
 
 Property and business acquired. 
 
 Clark, Payne & Co. 
 
 Refinery at Cleveland 
 
 .do 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Large refinery and docks at Long Island 
 City, N. Y. 
 
 Refinery at Louisville, Ky., and large 
 marketing business throughout South¬ 
 ern States. Also owned 20 per cent 
 of stock of Waters-Pierce Oil Co. 
 
 [Large refinery and docks at New York 
 \ Harbor. 
 
 Large refinery on Long Island, N. Y., and 
 canning oil for export. 
 
 [Cornwell refinery at Oil City, Pa. 
 
 I Stonewell Lubricating Oil Works, Oil 
 l City, Pa. 
 
 Standard Oil Co. of Pittsburg.. 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 7 
 
 ( National refinery, Pittsburg, weekly ca¬ 
 pacity 5,538 barrels. 
 
 Standard refinery, Pittsburg, weekly ca¬ 
 pacity 7,250 barrels. 
 
 (4) 
 
 Manner of combination or acquisition, whether ac¬ 
 quired in whole or in part, and amount paid 
 therefor. 
 
 Property; largely in exchange for S. 0. 
 Co. stock. 
 
 Property; probably for cash. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 -do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 (5) 
 
 Former owners of property who there¬ 
 upon received stock in Standard 
 organization. 
 
 fOliver H. Payne. 
 [John Huntington. 
 
 H. A. Hutchins (?). 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Entire stock; exchanged for stock of 
 S. 0. Co. 
 
 Acquired one-half interest in 1873 and 
 balance in 1886. 
 
 Entire stock; in exchange for S. 0. Co. 
 stock. 
 
 At first half, and later all the stock; in ex¬ 
 change for S. 0. Co. stock. 
 
 Property; in exchange for S. 0. Co. stock. 
 
 
 ( Entire stock; in exchange for S. 0. Co. 
 stock. 
 
 F. A. Arter (?). 
 
 'Josiah Macy, jr. 
 
 W. H. Macy. 
 
 W. H. Macy, jr.. 
 W. T. Wardwell. 
 
 Charles Pratt. 
 C. M. Pratt... 
 H. H. Rogers. 
 H. A. Pratt.. 
 
 Josiah Macy and other Macys. 
 
 fj. J. Vandergrift. 
 (John Pitcairn.... 
 
 Wm. G. Warden.. 
 Charles Lockhart. 
 Major Frew.. 
 
 (#) 
 
 Whether plants were thereafter oper¬ 
 ated or dismantled. 
 
 jOperated 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 Dismantled 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do.. 
 
 _do.. 
 
 _do.. 
 
 _do.. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 Operated. 
 
 Refinery dismantled; market¬ 
 ing business continued. 
 
 (7) 
 
 References. 
 
 Operated. 
 
 do 
 
 |l)ismantled, 1901-02. 
 
 16:3064, 3138, 3160, 3161. (See brief, vol. 
 l,p. 22.) 
 
 16:3064,3138,3159,3161; 6:2625. 
 16:3138,3159,3161; 6:2626. 
 16:3138,3159,3161; 6:2625. 
 16:3138,3159,3161; 6:2626. 
 
 6:2625; 16:3138. 
 
 16:3138,3159; 6:2626. 
 
 16:3138,3159; 6:2625. 
 
 6:2626; 16:3138. 
 
 16:3138,3159; 6:2626. 
 
 16:3138,3159; 6:2626. 
 
 16:3138,3159; 6:2625. 
 
 16:3138,3159; 6:2626. 
 
 16:3138,3159; 6:2626. 
 
 16:3138,3160; 6:2626. 
 
 16:3138,3160; 6:2626. 
 
 16:3138, 3160. 
 
 16:3075, 3172; 19:618, 821. (See brief, 
 vol. 1, p. 23.) 
 
 16:3077, 3163; 17:3270, 3359; 19:677, 759, 
 760. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 28.) 
 
 Operated. 
 
 116:3079, 3081, 3151, 3167; 17:3264; 19 :618, 
 l 674, 742. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 24.) 
 
 16:3076, 3161; 17:3275; 19:618, 679, 792, 
 (See brief, vol. 1, p. 23.) 
 
 [16:3077-79, 3163; 17:3263, 3353; 19:673, 
 l 735, 739. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 25.) 
 
 [6:2630; 16:3080,3168; 17:3264; 19:618, 
 \ 675, 747. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 24.) 
 
APPENDD ar d Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 —Continued. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1874 
 
 1875 
 
 1876 
 
 1877 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 s were thereafter oper- 
 r dismantled. 
 
 Model ('C 
 
 Lockha 
 
 Warder 
 
 Atlanti 
 
 Americ 
 
 United 
 
 J. N. C 
 
 Bennetntil destroyed by 
 ,1883; not rebuilt. 
 
 Porter, 
 
 R. H. 
 John Js 
 Easter 
 Octave 
 
 flnmfoidtil destroyed by 
 bersJ1883; not rebuilt. 
 
 Centra 
 
 Carter, 
 
 Kidde 
 
 72 
 
 (7) 
 
 References. 
 
 6:2630; 16:3081; 19:618, 815. 
 
 '6:2630, 2631; 16:3080, 3082. (See brief, 
 k vol. 1, p. 24.) 
 
 16:3081, 3165; 19:618. (See brief, vol. 1, 
 p. 24.) 
 
 16:3080, 3165; 17:3263; 19:618, 673, 734, 
 737. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 24.) 
 
 16:3093, 3175, 3223; 19:618; vol. A:18, 
 479. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 26.) 
 
 16:3093, 3223, 3320,3326; 19:618, 816, 820. 
 (See brief, vol. 1, p. 25.) 
 
 A6:3091, 3174; 17:3263; 19:618, 673, 727. 
 (See brief, vol. 1, p. 25.) 
 
 6:2627; 16:3083, 3168;17:3342;19:673,719, 
 720. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 24.) 
 
 6:2627, 3240; 17:3342. 
 
 6:2627, 3240; 17:3342. 
 
 6:2627, 3240; 17:3342. 
 
 6:2627, 3240; 17:3342. 
 
 6:2627, 3240; 17:3271, 3361; 19:678, 769, 
 770. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 26.) 
 
 ■6:2630; 17:3269; 19:618, 677, 757. 
 
 17:3272, 3357, 3363; 19:618, 678, 773. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 29.) 
 
 17:3268,3357,3363;19:676, 678, 756. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 29.) 
 
APPENDIX C.——SHEET 2. Partial list of concerns combined with or acquired by Standard Oil interests since the organization of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 Continued. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1874 
 
 1875 
 
 1876 
 
 1877 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 Name. 
 
 Model Oil Co. 
 
 (3) 
 
 Property and business acquired. 
 
 Lockhart & Frew. 
 
 /Refinery at Pittsburg, weekly capacity 
 l 3,233 barrels. ■ 
 
 Nonpariel refinery at Pittsburg, weekly 
 capacity 1,318 barrels. 
 
 Brilliant refinery at Pittsburg.. 
 
 Warden, Frew & Co. 
 
 Atlantic Refinery Co. 
 
 American Transfer Co. 
 
 United Pipe Lines. 
 
 J. N. Camden & Co. 
 
 Bennett, Warner & Co. 
 Porter, Moreland & Co. 
 
 R. H. Lee [Donahue & Lee ?]. 
 
 John Jackson.... 
 
 Easterly & Davis. 
 
 Octave Oil Co. 
 
 Comfort, Pickering & Cham¬ 
 bers. 
 
 Refineries, docks, and canning works, and 
 export jobbing business, at Philadel¬ 
 phia. 
 
 Refinery at Philadelphia, and marketing.. 
 
 /Large system of pipe lines in western 
 \ Pennsylvania oil regions. 
 
 /Large system of pipe lines in western 
 f Pennsylvania oil fields. 
 
 'Camden refinery at Parkersburg, W. Va. 
 
 Pool refinery at Parkersburg, W. Ya_ 
 
 Camden refinery at Baltimore. 
 
 Refinery at Titusville. 
 
 Large refinery at Titusville. 
 
 Refinery at Titusville, Pa.. 
 _do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Central Refining Co. 
 
 Carter, Windsor & Co. 
 
 ( Central refinery at Pittsburg, weekly 
 capacity 21,867 barrels. 
 
 Peerless refinery at Pittsburg, weekly 
 capacity 3,758 barrels. 
 
 Refinery at Boston, and marketing in 
 New England States. 
 
 (4) 
 
 Manner of combination or acquisition; whether ac¬ 
 quired in whole or in part, and amount paid 
 therefor. 
 
 Entire stock; in exchange for S. 0. Co. 
 stock. 
 
 ►Property; in exchange for S. 0. Co. stock. 
 
 Property and business; in exchange for 
 S. 0. Co. stock. 
 
 /Entire stock; in exchange for S. 0. Co. 
 \ stock. 
 
 ... do 
 
 Entire stock, ultimately; partly in ex¬ 
 change for S. 0. Co. stock. 
 
 Property acquired in exchange for S. 0. 
 Co. stock; Camden Consolidated Oil 
 Co., organized to take and carry on the 
 business. 
 
 Acme Oil Co. organized to take over these 
 properties; and certain of the former 
 owners retained a minority stock inter¬ 
 est, while Archbold exchanged his in¬ 
 terest for S. O. Co. stock. 
 
 (5) 
 
 Former owners of property who there¬ 
 upon received stock in Standard 
 organization. 
 
 fWm. G. Warden. 
 
 < Charles Lockhart. 
 [Major Frew. 
 
 ’Win. G. Warden. 
 Chas. Lockhart.. 
 Major Frew. 
 
 Wm. G. Warden. 
 Chas. Lockhart.. 
 Major Frew. 
 
 Wm. G. Warden.. 
 Chas. Lockhart... 
 
 Major Frew. 
 
 H. H. Houston(?). 
 
 /J. A. Bostwick. 
 
 [Daniel O’Day (later). 
 
 J. J. Vandergrift. 
 
 Leased, then purchased. 
 
 Property purchased. 
 
 _do. 
 
 Stock or property purchased. 
 
 Major interest in property purchased; 
 Keystone Refining Co. organized and 
 took over property, of which former 
 owners received minority of stock; in 
 1882 minority stock acquired in ex¬ 
 change for trust certificates. 
 
 •Entire stock purchased in 1877 and 1882.. 
 
 Kidder, Vaughn & Co. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Property purchased; Maverick Oil Co. or¬ 
 ganized and took over property. Former 
 owners for short time held minority 
 stock. 
 
 Property purchased by Maverick Oil Co. 
 (owned by Standard) and later trans¬ 
 ferred to Beacon Oil Co.; former own¬ 
 ers for a time held minority stock of 
 Maverick Oil Co. 
 
 J. N. Camden_ 
 
 W. P. Thompson. 
 
 John D. Archbold 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 Whether plants were thereafter oper¬ 
 ated or dismantled. 
 
 (No evidence). 
 
 .do 
 
 .do 
 
 Operated. 
 
 |_do .. 
 
 .do 
 
 (7) 
 
 References. 
 
 6:2630; 16:3081; 19:618, 815. 
 
 { 
 
 6:2630, 2631; 16:3080, 3082. (See brief, 
 vol. 1, p. 24.) 
 
 { 
 
 16:3081, 3165; 19:618. (See brief, vol. 1, 
 p. 24.) 
 
 .do 
 
 .do 
 
 .do 
 
 /Operated until destroyed by 
 1 fire, about 1883; not rebuilt. 
 
 Dismantled. 
 _do. 
 
 do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Operated until destroyed by 
 fire about 1883; not rebuilt. 
 
 Dismantled. 
 _do. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 16:3080, 3165; 17:3263; 19:618, 673, 734, 
 737. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 24.) 
 
 16:3093, 3175, 3223; 19:618; vol. A:18, 
 479. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 26.) 
 
 16:3093, 3223, 3320, 3326; 19:618, 816, 820. 
 (See brief, vol. 1, p. 25.) 
 
 16:3091, 3174; 17:3263; 19:618, 673, 727. 
 (See brief, vol. 1, p. 25.) 
 
 6:2627; 16:3083, 3168;17:3342;19:673,719, 
 720. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 24.) 
 
 6:2627, 3240; 17:3342. 
 
 6:2627, 3240; 17:3342. 
 
 6:2627, 3240; 17:3342. 
 
 6:2627, 3240; 17:3342. 
 
 6:2627, 3240; 17:3271, 3361; 19:678, 769, 
 770. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 26.) 
 
 6:2630; 17:3269; 19:618, 677, 757. 
 
 17:3272, 3357, 3363;19:618, 678, 773. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 29.) 
 
 17:3268,3357,3363;19:676, 678, 756. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 29.) 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 8 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 rd Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 —Continued. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1877 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 A r ere thereafter oper- 
 lismantled. 
 
 Sone & FI 
 Philadelpl 
 Empire Tr 
 
 ) 
 
 )■ 
 
 Producers 
 and Peti 
 
 C. West & 
 
 Merritt, Jo 
 J. Parkhuri 
 Sylvia C. 1 
 
 some; consol i- 
 
 James C. Operated others. 
 
 Robert Re' 
 
 Harry Ree 
 
 George Ha: 
 
 D. Hostett 
 
 Columbia (jmduit line orU. 
 
 el line was taken 
 
 Antwerp P 
 
 Oil City Pi. 
 
 Clarion Pip 
 
 Sandy Pip<. 
 
 Milton Pipi. 
 
 Keystone I 
 
 Karns Pipe 
 
 Hunter & C. 
 
 Pennsvlvar 
 Co. * 
 
 Union Pipe, 
 
 Grant Pipe 
 
 Relief Pipe 
 
 Citizens Oi 
 
 72719— 
 
 with U. P. L. 
 
 (7) 
 
 References. 
 
 16:3085, 3173; 17:3264; 19:618, 675, 747. 
 
 (See brief, vol. 1, p. 32.) 
 
 16:3086, 3174; 19:618, 747. 
 
 16:3085-3088. 
 
 16:3213; 17:3273, 3364; 19:618, 679, 774. 
 (See brief, vol. 1, p. 33.) 
 
 5:2203-2204; 16 :3175; 17:3267, 3355, 3358; 
 19:618, 676, 752, 754. (See brief, vol. 
 1, p. 27.) 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2648, 3015, 3119, 3322, 3327; 16:3095; 
 19:618. 
 
 6:2649, 3015, 3321, 3322, 3327; 17:3329, 
 3330. 
 
 6:2630,3022. 
 
APPENDIX C.—SHEET 3 .—Partial list of concerns combined with or acquired by Standard Oil interests since the organization of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 Continued 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1877 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 Name. 
 
 Sone & Fleming Mfg. Co.. 
 Philadelphia Refining Co. 
 Empire Transportation Co. 
 
 Producers Consolidated Land 
 and Petroleum Co. 
 
 C. West & Sons. 
 
 Merritt, Jones & Co... 
 J. Parkhurst, jr., & Co. 
 
 Sylvia C. Hunt. 
 
 James C. Christopher. 
 Robert Reed & Co.... 
 
 Harry Reed.. 
 
 George Hammel. 
 
 D. Hostetter. 
 
 Columbia Conduit Co. 
 
 Antwerp Pipe Co. 
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 Property and business acquired. 
 
 (4) 
 
 Large refinery on Long Island, N. Y. 
 Refinery at Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Pipe line properties in Pennsylvania, 
 tank cars, and other facilities for trans¬ 
 porting oil. 
 
 Large refinery at Bayonne, N. J., and pro¬ 
 ducing properties in Pennsylvania. 
 
 Refinery at Baltimore, Md_ 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do.. 
 
 .do.. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Gasoline refinery at Baltimore. 
 .do. 
 
 Oil City Pipe Co.. 
 
 Clarion Pipe Line.■ 
 
 Sandy Pipe Co. 
 
 Milton Pipe Line. 
 
 Keystone Pipe Co. 
 
 Karns Pipe Line. 
 
 Hunter & Cummings pipe line. 
 
 Pennsylvania Transportation 
 Co. ' 
 
 Union Pipe Co. 
 
 Grant Pipe Line. 
 
 Relief Pipe Line. 
 
 Citizens Oil Works. 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 9 
 
 do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 Manner of combination or acquisition; whether ac¬ 
 quired in whole or in part, and amount paid 
 therefor. 
 
 Properties and business acquired in one 
 transaction fromEmpire Transportation 
 Co., which in turn was owned by the 
 Pennsylvania Railroad, and which 
 transaction was accompanied by a re¬ 
 bate contract (16:3119). 
 
 Majority, and later entire stock. 
 
 (5) 
 
 Former owners of property who there¬ 
 upon received stock in Standard 
 organization. 
 
 Baltimore United Oil Co. organized and 
 . took over all these properties; Standard 
 interests received over five-sixths of the 
 stock, and in 1883 acquired the balance. 
 
 D. Bushnell. 
 
 Fairview refinery at Pittsburg, weekly 
 capacity 2,136 barrels. 
 
 *'% 
 
 Trunk pipe line from western Pennsyl- 
 vaina oil fields to Pittsburg. 
 
 Pipe lines in western Pennsylvania. 
 
 Property purchased along with Standard’s 
 acquisition of the Columbia Conduit Co. 
 
 Entire stock purchased; United Pipe 
 Lines had constructed a parallel line. 
 
 Property acquired by United Pipe Lines 
 
 Refinery at Pittsburg, weekly capacity 
 6,072 barrels. 
 
 do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Property purchased. 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 Whether plants were thereafter oper¬ 
 ated or dismantled. 
 
 Operated. 
 
 (No evidence) 
 Operated. 
 
 (No evidence). 
 
 (Dismantled some; consoli- 
 \ dated and operated others. 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 Either the Conduit line orU. 
 P. L. parallel line was taken 
 up. 
 
 Consolidated with U. P. L. 
 system. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 Dismantled 
 
 (7) 
 
 References. 
 
 16:3085, 3173; 17:3264; 19:618, 675, 747. 
 
 (See brief, vol. 1, p. 32.) 
 
 16:3086, 3174; 19:618, 747. 
 
 16:3085-3088. 
 
 16:3213; 17:3273, 3364; 19:618, 679, 774. 
 (See brief, vol. 1, p. 33.) 
 
 5:2203-2204; 16:3175; 17:3267,3355,3358; 
 19:618, 676, 752, 754. (See brief, vol. 
 1, p. 27.) 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2648, 3015, 3119, 3322, 3327; 16:3095; 
 19:618. 
 
 6:2649, 3015, 3321, 3322, 3327; 17:3329, 
 3330. 
 
 6:2630,3022. 
 
APPENDIX C. 
 
 'd Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 —Continued. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1878 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 were thereafter oper- 
 r dismantled. 
 
 Smith’s Fed with U. P. L. 
 
 (7) 
 
 References. 
 
 17:3262, 3353; 19:618, 674, 747. 
 
 Paine, Abl< 
 Excelsior I. 
 
 Eclipse Wo. 
 
 Portland K 
 American I 
 
 l 
 
 Mica Stean 
 Grease C< 
 
 Waters-Piei. 
 
 888 . 
 
 and operated un- 
 
 17:3262, 3353; 19:618, 674, 742, 743. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 33.) 
 
 17:3262, 3353; 19:674. (See brief, vol. 1, 
 p. 33.) 
 
 17:3275, 3368; 19:793, 679, 618. 
 
 17:3273, 3364; 19:679. 
 
 (16:3084, 3173; 17:3267, 3355; 19:618, 676, 
 748. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 30.) 
 
 16:3084, 3173; 17:3267; 19:676. 
 
 17:3279; 19:618,637,681,808. (See brief, 
 vol. 1, pp. 29, 120.) 
 
 Alexander 
 
 17:3271, 3360; 19:677, 763, 764. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 28.) 
 
 Thompson, 
 
 17:3274, 3367; 19:679, 782, 783. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 31.) 
 
 1880 
 
 Swan & Fii 
 
 17:3274, 3395; 7:427; 19:636. 
 
 1879 
 
 1879, 
 or prior 
 thereto. 
 
 Franklin P 
 
 Vesta Oil ^ 
 
 J. W. Trun 
 Backus Oil 
 Hanna, Ch: 
 
 17:3276; 19:640, 680, 799. 
 
 17:3397; 19:645; 7:456. 
 
 16:3160. 
 
 16:3160. 
 
 16:3160; 19:618. 
 
 Bishop & I 
 72719- 
 
 16:3161. 
 
APPENDIX C. SHEET 4. Partial list of concerns combined with or acquired by Standard Oil interests since the organization of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 Continued. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1878 
 
 1880 
 
 1879 
 
 1879, 
 or prior 
 thereto. 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 Name. 
 
 Smith’s Ferry Oil Transp. Co. 
 
 Paine, Ablett & Co. 
 
 Excelsior Refinery. 
 
 Eclipse Works. 
 
 Portland Kerosine Oil Co. 
 
 American Lubricating Oil Co. 
 
 Mica Steam Packing & Axle 
 Grease Co. 
 
 Waters-Pierce & Co. 
 
 Alexander McDonald & Co.. 
 
 Thompson, Bedford & Co. 
 
 Swan & Finch. 
 
 Franklin Pipe Co. 
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 Property and business acquired. 
 
 Pipe lines near Smith’s Ferry, Pa. 
 
 Refinery at Smith’s Ferry, Pa. 
 
 Refinery at Freedom, Pa. 
 
 Large lubricating oil works at Franklin, 
 Pa. 
 
 Refinery at Portland, Me. 
 
 Lubricating oil plant at Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 do. 
 
 Marketing properties and business in 
 Southwestern States, headquarters at 
 St. Louis. 
 
 Marketing properties and business in 
 Southern and Western States, head¬ 
 quarters at Cincinnati. 
 
 Marketing and exporting lubricating oils, 
 New York. 
 
 Vesta Oil Works. 
 
 J. W. Trunbull & Co 
 
 Backus Oil Co. 
 
 Hanna, Chapin & Co. 
 
 Compounding and marketing lubricating 
 oils, New York. 
 
 Gathering pipe lines in western Pennsyl¬ 
 vania. 
 
 Refinery on New York Harbor. 
 
 Bishop & Heisel. 
 
 Refinery in Cleveland. 
 _do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 (4) 
 
 Manner of combination or acquisition; whether ac¬ 
 quired in whole or in part, and amount paid 
 therefor. 
 
 ^Affiliated properties, and were acquired 
 together in their entirety. 
 
 Property. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Stock purchased, 1878 to 1886. 
 Entire property. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Waters-Pierce Oil Co. organized to carry 
 on the business; Standard interests 
 acquired 60 per cent of stock for 
 cash; former owners retained 40 per 
 cent. 
 
 Consolidated Tank Line Co. organized to 
 carry on the business; Standard ac¬ 
 quired half, and later all the stock, for¬ 
 mer owners retaining balance in the 
 meantime. 
 
 Thompson, Bedford & Co., Limited, or¬ 
 ganized to carry on business; Standard 
 at first acquired half, and later balance 
 of stock, which in meantime was held 
 by former owners of the business. 
 
 Swan A Finch Co. organized to carry on 
 business; Thompson & Bedford owned 
 half; Standard acquired balance of 
 stock in 1892 and 1894. 
 
 Minority of shares only acquired by 
 Standard interests. 
 
 Stock (limited partnership) purchased 
 for $127,500. 
 
 Property purchased. 
 _do. 
 
 Property exchanged for S. O. Co. stock. 
 
 (?) 
 
 Property purchased. 
 
 (5) 
 
 Former owners of property who there¬ 
 upon received stock in Standard 
 organization. 
 
 Hanna (H. M.) and Chapin 
 
 (G.W.). (?) 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 Whether plants were thereafter oper¬ 
 ated or dismantled. 
 
 Consolidated with U. P. L. 
 system. 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Operated. 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 Consolidated and operated un¬ 
 til about 1888. 
 
 Operated. 
 
 (7) 
 
 References. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 17:3262, 3353; 19:618, 674, 747. 
 
 17:3262, 3353; 19:618, 674, 742, 743. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 33.) 
 
 17:3262, 3353; 19:674. (See brief^ vol. 1, 
 p. 33.) 
 
 17:3275,3368; 19:793, 679, 618. 
 
 17:3273, 3364; 19:679. 
 
 f16:3084, 3173; 17:3267, 3355; 19:618, 676, 
 748. (See brief, vol. 1, p. 30.) 
 
 .16:3084, 3173; 17:3267; 19:676. 
 
 17:3279; 19:618,637,681,808. (See brief, 
 vol. 1, pp. 29, 120.) 
 
 17:3271, 3360; 19:677, 763, 764. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 28.) 
 
 17:3274, 3367; 19:679, 782, 783. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 31.) 
 
 17:3274, 3395; 7:427; 19:636. 
 
 do. 
 
 17:3276; 19:640, 680, 799. 
 
 17:3397; 19:645; 7:456. 
 
 16:3160. 
 
 16:3160. 
 
 16:3160; 19:618, 
 
 16:3161. 
 
 72719-—11. (To face page 68.) No. 10 
 
APPENDIX Card Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 —Continued. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1879, 
 or prior 
 thereto. 
 
 1879 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 were thereafter oper- 
 dismantled. 
 
 Aladdin Oil 
 David Bly <5 
 R. S. Warin; 
 
 R. J. Wariru 
 E. J. Waring 
 Livingston I 
 W. P. Logar 
 King & Goo< 
 John Speer <! ° 
 P. Weisenbe 
 Brooks, Ball 
 J. C. Kirkp^ 
 
 J. A. McKee 
 H. S. A. Ste 
 Wormser, M< 
 
 J. D. Stockc 
 Elkins & Fk 
 Bergen Poin 
 Peerless... 
 Kings Count 
 Republic R^e) 
 Glean Petrol.. 
 
 CO 
 
 r—! 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 a> 
 
 ci 
 
 S-i 
 
 a> 
 
 o 
 
 a> 
 
 a* 
 
 s-< 
 
 QJ 
 
 0X1 
 
 'r- 
 
 H3 
 
 a> 
 
 PI 
 
 c3 
 
 s 
 
 QQ 
 
 •rH 
 
 <D 
 
 <X> 
 
 £ 
 
 m 
 
 Qj 
 
 • rH 
 
 Sh 
 
 a> 
 
 PI 
 
 a> 
 
 J* 
 
 f-l 
 
 a> 
 
 r-H 
 r—H 
 
 03 
 
 s 
 
 m 
 
 72719—1 
 
 Star Oil Co. 
 
 Vacuum Oil 
 
 Galena Oil 1 
 
 Signal Oil W and operated. 
 
 (D 
 
 References. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2632. 
 
 6:2632. 
 
 6:2632. 
 
 19:618. 
 
 19:618. 
 
 19:618. 
 
 17:3277, 3370; 19:637, 681. 
 vol. 1, p. 31.) 
 
 (See brief, 
 
 17:3274, 3366; 19:618, 680, 800. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 31.) 
 
 17:3274, 3366; 19:679, 775, 780. 
 
APPENDIX C. SHEET 5. Partial list of concerns combined with or acquired by Standard Oil interests since the organization of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 Continued. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1879, 
 or prior 
 thereto. 
 
 1879 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 Name. 
 
 Aladdin Oil Co.. 
 David Bly & Co. 
 
 R. S. Waring_ 
 
 R. J. Warms:_ 
 
 E. J. Waring. 
 
 Livingston Bros. 
 
 W. P. Logan & Co. 
 
 King & Goodman. 
 
 John Speer & Co. 
 
 P. Weisenberger & Co. 
 
 Brooks, Ballantyne & Co... 
 
 J. C. Kirkpatrick & Co. 
 
 J. A. McKee & Son. 
 
 H, S. A. Stewart. 
 
 Wormser, Meyers & Co. 
 
 J. D. Stockdale. 
 
 Elkins & Flack. 
 
 Bergen Point. 
 
 Peerless. 
 
 Kings County Oil Co. 
 
 Republic Refining Co. 
 
 Olean Petroleum Co. (Ltd.) 
 
 Star Oil Co. 
 
 Vacuum Oil Co. 
 
 Galena Oil Works (Limited) 
 
 Signal Oil Works (Limited)... 
 
 (3) 
 
 Property and business acquired. 
 
 Weekly 
 
 capacity, 
 
 barrels. 
 
 Refinery, Pittsburg. 4, 017 
 
 -do. 2,490 
 
 Cosmos refinery, Pittsburg.7,394 
 
 Vesta refinery, Pittsburg. 9, 058 
 
 Star refinery, Pittsburg. 3,718 
 
 Crystal refinery, Pittsburg. 3, 624 
 
 Eagle refinery, Pittsburg. 2,444 
 
 Federal refinery, Pittsburg.2,456 
 
 Iron City refinery, Pittsburg. I, 600 
 
 Keystone refinery, Pittsburg.1, 018 
 
 Lilly refinery, Pittsburg. 3, 072 
 
 Liona refinery, Pittsburg. 564 
 
 Liberty refinery, Pittsburg. 5,498 
 
 Penn refinery, Pittsburg. 1,854 
 
 Petrolite refinery, Pittsburg. 1, 703 
 
 Radiant refinery, Pittsburg. 1, 906 
 
 Riverside refinery, Pittsburg.1, 809 
 
 Refinery on New York Harbor. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 (No evidence). 
 
 (No evidence; possibly producing prop¬ 
 erties.) 
 
 Business and property, Erie, Pa. 
 
 Refinery at Rochester, N. Y., manufac¬ 
 turing lubricating oils. 
 
 Works at Franklin, Pa., compounding 
 lubricating oils. 
 
 Works at Franklin, Pa., compounding 
 lubricating and signal oils. 
 
 (4) 
 
 Manner of combination or acquisition: whether ac¬ 
 quired in whole or in part, and amount paid 
 therefor. 
 
 Property purchased or leased. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Entire stock purchased. 
 _do. 
 
 Property and business purchased. 
 
 Stock purchased; former owners retained 
 about one-quarter interest until 1900. 
 
 Purchased five-sixths of stock; balance 
 held by former owners. 
 
 About 40 per cent of its stock acquired 
 from Galena Oil Works, which held it 
 at time latter company’s stock was ac¬ 
 quired by Standard. 
 
 (5) 
 
 Former owners of property who there¬ 
 upon received stock in Standard 
 organization. 
 
 (6) 
 
 Whether plants were thereafter oper¬ 
 ated or dismantled. 
 
 <x> 
 
 ! 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CD 
 
 o3 
 
 pH 
 
 <D 
 
 & 
 
 o 
 
 a> 
 
 ph 
 
 a> 
 
 ZD 
 
 a> 
 
 fl 
 
 o 
 
 pH 
 
 CD 
 
 bO 
 
 ?H 
 
 c3 
 
 r O 
 
 CD 
 
 I—H 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 GO 
 
 • rH 
 
 r x3 
 
 <d 
 
 pH 
 
 <D 
 
 £ 
 
 ZD 
 
 CD 
 
 • rH 
 
 Ph 
 
 CD 
 
 a 
 
 a> 
 
 Ph 
 
 Ph 
 
 <X> 
 
 r—H 
 r—I 
 
 03 
 
 a 
 
 m 
 
 (No evidence). 
 _do. 
 
 _do... 
 
 Operated. 
 
 Consolidated and operated. 
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 References. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2630. 
 
 6:2632. 
 
 6:2632. 
 
 6:2632. 
 
 19:618. 
 
 19:618. 
 
 19:618. 
 
 17:3277, 3370; 19:637, 681. 
 vol. 1, p. 31.) 
 
 (See brief, 
 
 17:3274, 3366; 19:618, 680, 800. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 31.) 
 
 17:3274, 3366; 19:679, 775, 780. 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 11 
 
APPENDIX C dard Company °f Ohio in 1870 —Continued. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 s were thereafter oper- 
 )r dismantled. 
 
 1879 
 
 1880 
 
 H. C. Van T 
 
 .util 1880. 
 
 Bush & Oo. 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 (7) 
 
 References. 
 
 
 3d in 1882. 
 
 S.Jenny & 
 Yennie & B 
 McGoey & 
 Wilson & A 
 Gregory.... 
 Bush & Dei 
 
 Empire Re 
 
 in 1895. 
 
 Solar Oil C 
 Hamilton 
 
 i 
 
 itil 1901. 
 
 17:3278, 3371; 19:618, 681, 805. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 27.) 
 
 17:3261, 3352; 19:673. 
 
 17:3323, 3324; 1:258; A:159; 6:2632. 
 
 17:3323, 3324; 1:258. 
 
 17:3323, 3324; 1:258. 
 
 17:3323, 3324; 1:258. 
 
 17:3323, 3324; 1:258. 
 
 1:258; 17:3268, 3358; 19:676, 757. (See 
 brief, vol. 2, p. 68, re acquisition of these 
 New York refineries in connection with 
 Standard’s efforts to get control of Tide¬ 
 water Pipe Line.) 
 
 17:3275, 3369; 19:680, 798. (See brief, 
 vol. 1, p. 27.) 
 
 17:3262, 3354; 19:675. 
 
 17:3271, 3361; 19:677; 7:455, 427. 
 
 1881 
 
 1882 
 
 Chesebrou^ 
 
 1883 
 
 Atlas Refii 
 
 Union Ref 
 
 Tide-Wate 
 
 Tide-Wate 
 
 Central R< 
 P. C. Han 
 
 m). 
 
 McKirgan 
 
 72719- 
 
 in 1887. 
 
 :e). 
 
 17:3269, 3359; 19:633, 677, 758. 
 17:3396; 19:644; 7:423, 424. 
 
 17:3397; 19:645; 7:424. 
 
 1:189, 195, 243; 17:3320; 19:641, 648. 
 
 17:3397; 17:454; 19:644. 
 
 17:3266, 3398, 3481; 19:646. 
 
 19:646; 7:455. 
 
APPENDIX C. SHEET 6. Partial list of concerns combined with or acquired by Standard Oil interests since the organization of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 Continued. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1879 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 Name. 
 
 (3) 
 
 Property and business acquired. 
 
 H. 0. Van Tine. 
 
 1880 
 
 Bush & Co. (Limited). 
 
 S. Jenny & Sons. 
 
 Yennie & Burke. 
 
 McGoey & King. 
 
 Wilson & Anderson. 
 
 Gregory. 
 
 Bush & Denslow Mfg. Co 
 
 Empire Refining Co. (Ltd.). . . 
 
 Diamond Works at Pittsburg, manufac¬ 
 turing lubricating oils. 
 
 Manufacturing and marketing lubricating 
 oils, Philadelphia. 
 
 Wallabout refinery, New York Harbor... 
 
 Refinery, New York Harbor.. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do.. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Large refinery on New York Harbor. 
 
 (4) 
 
 Manner of combination or acquisition; whether ac¬ 
 quired in whole or in part, and amount paid 
 therefor. 
 
 H. C. Van Tine & Co. (Limited), organ¬ 
 ized to carry on the business; Standard 
 acquired three-quarters of its stock in 
 1879 and the balance in 1882. 
 
 Entire stock purchased. 
 
 Property purchased. 
 
 -do. 
 
 -do. 
 
 -do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 One-half of stock purchased in 1880, bal¬ 
 ance in 1892. 
 
 Standard purchased 80 per cent of stock; 
 former owners retained the balance 
 until 1891. 
 
 (5) 
 
 Former owners of property who there¬ 
 upon received stock in Standard 
 organization. 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 Whether plants were thereafter oper¬ 
 ated or dismantled. 
 
 (7) 
 
 References. 
 
 Operated until 1886. 
 
 Discontinued in 1882. 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 .do.. 
 
 .do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do.. 
 
 Dismantled in 1895... 
 
 Operated. 
 
 17:3278, 3371; 19:618, 681, 805. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 27.) 
 
 17:3261, 3352; 19:673. 
 
 17:3323, 3324; 1:258; A:159; 6:2632. 
 
 17:3323, 3324; 1:258. 
 
 17:3323, 3324; 1:258. 
 
 17:3323, 3324; 1:258. 
 
 17:3323, 3324; 1:258. 
 
 1:258; 17:3268, 3358; 19:676,.757. (See 
 brief, vol. 2, p. 68, re acquisition of these 
 New York refineries in connection with 
 Standard’s efforts to get control of Tide¬ 
 water Pipe Line.) 
 
 17:3275, 3369; 19:680, 798. (See brief, 
 vol. 1, p. 27.) 
 
 1881 
 
 1882 
 
 1883 
 
 Solar Oil Co. (Limited)_ 
 
 Hamilton & Miller. 
 
 Chesebrough Mfg. Co. 
 
 Atlas Refining Co. 
 
 Union Refining Co. 
 
 Tide-Water Oil Co. 
 
 Tide-Water Pipe Co. (Ltd.) 
 
 Central Refining Co. (Ltd.) 
 P. C. Hanford. 
 
 McKirgan Oil Co. 
 
 Small refinery at Williamsport, Pa. 
 
 Lubricating and marketing business, 
 headquarters Cincinnati, Ohio. 
 
 Works at New York, manufacturing vase¬ 
 line and vaseline products. 
 
 Refinery at Buffalo, N. Y. 
 
 Refinery at Oil City, Pa... 
 
 Large refinery on New York Harbor. 
 
 Gathering lines and trunk line from west¬ 
 ern Pennsylvania to New York Harbor, 
 the first trunk line to the seaboard. 
 
 Small refinery on New York Harbor. 
 
 Marketing oils in Illinois and Wisconsin; 
 headquarters at Chicago. 
 
 Marketing business, Newark, N. J. 
 
 Entire stock purchased. 
 
 Inland Oil Co. organized to carry on the . 
 business; Standard acquired half the 
 stock in 1880, for which it paid 
 $70,076.40; and the balance it acquired 
 in 1891 for $190,000 in trust certificates. 
 
 Purchased majority of stock; former own- . 
 ers retained balance. 
 
 Entire stock acquired in 1882 and 1883 . 
 for $39,000 in trust certificates. 
 
 Stock purchased for $105,279.13 in trust . 
 certificates and cash. 
 
 ' Purchased 31 per cent of stock, and en¬ 
 deavored to get control; also entered 
 
 ► into pool contract with Tide-Water ► 
 companies. (See brief, vol. 2, p. 68 et 
 seq.) 
 
 Entire stock purchased; two-thirds in . 
 1883 for $100,000, and balance in 1900. 
 
 P. C. Hanford Oil Co. organized to carry on . 
 the business; Standard acquired a bare 
 majority of its shares, for which it paid 
 $255,000 in trust certificates; balance of 
 stock acquired in 1890. 
 
 This company was organized to take over . 
 a marketing business at Newark; Stand¬ 
 ard paid $38,200 for a little over a half 
 interest, and acquired the remainder of 
 its stock the year following. 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 Operated until 1901 
 
 17:3262, 3354; 19:675. 
 
 17:3271, 3361; 19:677; 7:455, 427. 
 
 Operated. 
 
 (No evidence). 
 
 Dismantled in 1887 
 
 17:3269, 3359; 19:633, 677, 758. 
 17:3396; 19:644; 7:423, 424. 
 17:3397; 19:645; 7:424. 
 
 Dismantled 
 
 Operated... 
 
 1:189, 195, 243; 17:3320; 19:641, 648. 
 
 17:3397; 17:454; 19:644. 
 
 17:3266, 3398, 3481; 19:646. 
 
 (No evidence) 
 
 19:646; 7:455. 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 12 
 
APPENDIX C .—i Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 —Continued. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 ere thereafter oper- 
 smantled. 
 
 Dangler Refinic 
 Clark Bros. & C 
 Crystal Oil Co. 
 Forest City Oil 
 Woodland Oil C 
 
 Lloyd Tevis...- 
 
 Isaac E. Blake 
 
 Pittsburg Pipe zed 
 
 United Refiners. 
 Logan, Emery <!. 
 
 Holdship & Irwlt half the time 
 e; dismantled 
 se. 
 
 D. P. Reighard 
 
 United Oil Co.|idard buys and 
 mtire product. 
 
 Monarch Oil Co 
 
 Globe Oil Co.. .,il 1892 
 
 Chester Oil Co. 
 West Michigan 
 Capital City Oili 
 
 Whites Golden 
 
 il 1899. 
 
 11 1892.. 
 ntinued. 
 n 1901.. 
 
 ntinued. 
 
 (U 
 
 References. 
 
 6:3029, 3030. 
 6:3029, 3030. 
 6:3029, 3030. 
 6:3029, 3330. 
 6:3028-3330. 
 
 17:3394; 19:635. 
 
 17:3390, 3391; 19:634. 
 
 6:2630, 3009-3015, 3019; 17:3330. 
 
 6:2630, 3131 to 3133; 17:3330. 
 
 6:3015, 3019-3022, 3131; 17:3330. 
 
 19:647. 
 
 6:2641-2647; 17:3340. 
 
 19:637; A:58, 488. 
 19:646. 
 
 19:647; 7:457. 
 
 19:646; 7:454. 
 
 19:647; 7:456, 426. 
 19:646; 7:454. 
 
 19:647; 2:716; 7:457. 
 
 72719—11. 
 
APPENDIX C. SHEET 7. Partial list of concerns combined, with or acquired by Standard Oil interests since the organization of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 Continued, 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 Name. 
 
 Dangler Refining Co. 
 
 Clark Bros. & Co_ 
 
 Crystal Oil Co. 
 
 Forest City Oil Co.. 
 Woodland Oil Co.... 
 
 Lloyd Tevis. 
 
 Isaac E. Blake 
 
 Holdship & Irwin, 
 
 D. P. Reighard. 
 
 Pittsburg Pipe Line. 
 
 United Refiners Export Co. 
 Logan, Emery & Weaver... 
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
 Property and business acquired. 
 
 United Oil Co. 
 
 Monarch Oil Co. 
 Globe Oil Co... 
 
 Chester Oil Co. 
 
 West Michigan Oil Co. 
 Capital City Oil Co... 
 
 Refinery at Cleveland, Ohio. 
 _do. 
 
 (U 
 
 Manner of combination or acquisition; whether ac¬ 
 quired in whole or in part, and amount paid 
 therefor. 
 
 do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Refinery at Cleveland, weekly capacity 
 about 1,400 barrels. 
 
 Marketing business in Pacific Coast States. 
 
 Property purchased. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 Marketing business in Rocky Mountain 
 States. 
 
 American works, a large refinery at Pitts¬ 
 burg, weekly capacity, 6,828 barrels. 
 
 Empire works at Pittsburg, manufactur¬ 
 ing principally lubricating oil. 
 
 About 32 miles of pipes from the oil fields 
 to Holdship & Irwin and D. P. Reig- 
 hard’s refineries in Pittsburg; also de¬ 
 livering oil to two other independent 
 refineries. 
 
 Marketing business, Perth Amboy, N. J.. 
 
 Large refinery and wharves, at Philadel¬ 
 phia, costing about $350,000, completed 
 in 1880. 
 
 Large refinery at Florence, Colo 
 
 Marketing business, Cincinnati and vi¬ 
 cinity. 
 
 Marketing business in Minneapolis and 
 vicinity. 
 
 Marketing business in Minnesota. 
 
 Marketing business in western Michigan 
 Marketing business at Harrisburg, Pa — 
 
 Whites Golden] Lubricator Co. 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 13 
 
 Marketing business, Cincinnati and vi¬ 
 cinity. 
 
 Business taken over by Standard Oil Co. 
 of Iowa in exchange for minority stock 
 interest in latter company, which in¬ 
 terest was purchased by Standard in 
 1892. 
 
 Continental Oil Co. organized to carry on 
 business; former owners held minor¬ 
 ity stock interest until 1892, when it 
 was purchased by Standard. 
 
 Leased to Standard for five years in 1878; 
 property acquired in exchange for trust 
 certificates in 1886; Holdship and Ir¬ 
 win agreed not to again engage in the 
 business. 
 
 Property purchased. 
 
 Was owned jointly by Holdship & Irwin 
 and D. P. Reighard, and sold with their 
 refineries to Standard. 
 
 Entire stock ($50,000) purchased. 
 Purchased for $275,000 cash. 
 
 Purchased 17 per cent of stock. 
 
 Stock purchased in 1887 and 1890. 
 
 Entire stock purchased for $25,925. 
 
 (5) 
 
 Former owners of property who there¬ 
 upon received stock in Standard 
 organization. 
 
 Entire stock purchased for $10,000. 
 Entire stock purchased for $12,500. 
 
 Upon organization company acquired 
 marketing business at Harrisburg, for¬ 
 mer owners receiving minority interest, 
 which Standard acquired in 1901. 
 
 Entire stock purchased for $31,521 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 Whether plants were thereafter oper¬ 
 ated or dismantled. 
 
 (7) 
 
 References. 
 
 Dismantled 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do. 
 
 _do.. 
 
 Operated. 
 
 .do 
 
 Operated about half the time 
 during lease; dismantled 
 after purchase. 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 Probably utilized. 
 
 (No evidence). 
 Dismantled... 
 
 Operated; Standard buys and 
 markets its entire product. 
 
 Continued until 1899.. 
 
 Continued until 1892. 
 
 Continued until 1892.. 
 Business discontinued. 
 Discontinued in 1901.. 
 
 Business discontinued. 
 
 6:3029, 3030. 
 6:3029, 3030. 
 6:3029, 3030. 
 6:3029, 3330. 
 6:3028-3330. 
 
 17:3394; 19:635. 
 
 17:3390, 3391; 19:634. 
 
 6:2630, 3009-3015, 3019; 17:3330. 
 
 6:2630, 3131 to 3133; 17:3330. 
 
 6:3015, 3019-3022, 3131; 17:3330. 
 
 19:647. 
 
 6:2641-2647; 17:3340. 
 
 19:637; A:58, 488. 
 19:646. 
 
 19:647; 7:457. 
 
 19:646; 7:454. 
 
 19:647; 7:456, 426. 
 19:646; 7:454. 
 
 19:647; 2:716; 7:457. 
 
APPENDIX C iar d Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 —Continued. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1889 
 
 1890 
 
 1891 
 
 1892 
 
 1893 
 
 1895 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 3 were thereafter oper- 
 -* dismantled. 
 
 Mehlen’s Fal 
 
 Globe Refin 
 burg. 
 
 Globe Refini 
 delphia 
 
 Western & A 
 Co. 
 
 Underhay & 
 New Jersey p)- 
 
 Blodgett, Me^ 
 
 ntil 1892. 
 
 iismantled; pipe 
 aps utilized. 
 
 Des Moines ( 
 Electric Lig 
 L. D. Mix Of 
 Excelsior Oi 
 
 )ogus independent. 
 
 ogus independent. 
 
 Sutton Bros, 
 Borne, Scryl 
 
 Grant & Mc< 
 
 Oakdale OiP 
 Nicolai Bros 
 
 ogus independent. 
 
 Union Refin 
 
 72719- 
 
 ine Co. stock held 
 annually. 
 
 (7) 
 
 References. 
 
 19:646; 3:1509; 7:455. 
 
 6:3133-3137; 7:426, 455, 457, 501; 17:3331, 
 3332; 19:644, 648. 
 
 17:3395; 19:637; 7:457. 
 19:647; 7:457, 426. 
 
 5:2166. 
 
 2:959; 19:646; 7:462, 454. 
 19:646; 6:3206; 2:850; 7:465. 
 2:968; 19:647; 7:457. 
 
 3:1243. 
 
 3:1243. 
 
 17:3389; 19:633. 
 
 17:3393; 19:634. 
 
 2:851. 
 
 13:1195. 
 
 6:2842, 2661; 3169, 3178; 17:3338, 3352; 
 18:28. 
 
 (See brief, vol. 2, pp. 84-88, regarding 
 Standard’s oppressive manipulation of 
 prices and offer to buy the pipe lines 
 and all independent refineries affiliated 
 with the United States Pipe Lines.) 
 
APPENDIX C. SHEET 8. Partial list of concerns combined with or acquired by Standard Oil interests since the organization of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 Continued. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1889 
 
 1890 
 
 1891 
 
 1892 
 
 1893 
 
 1895 
 
 (2) 
 
 Name. 
 
 Mehlen’s Family Oil Co. 
 
 Globe Refining Co., of Pitts¬ 
 burg. 
 
 Globe Refining Co., of Phila¬ 
 delphia. 
 
 Western & Atlantic Pipe Line 
 Co. 
 
 Underhay & Co. .. 
 New Jersey Oil Co. 
 
 Blodgett, Moore & Co 
 
 Des Moines Oil Tank Line Co. 
 
 Electric Light Oil Co. 
 
 L. D. Mix Oil & Naphtha Co.. 
 Excelsior Oil Co. 
 
 Sutton Bros. 
 
 Borne, Scrymser & Co. 
 
 Grant & McCargo. 
 
 (3) 
 
 Property and business acquired. 
 
 Marketing business, Long Island City 
 and vicinity. 
 
 Large refinery at Pittsburg, completed 
 and in operation, cost about $250,000. 
 
 Refinery nearly completed at Philadel¬ 
 phia, same size as Pittsburg refinery. 
 
 Gathering lines in western Pennsylvania 
 and trunk line to Pittsburg owned by 
 owners of Globe Refining Co., and 
 supplying crude to several independ¬ 
 ents; also owned 1,152 tank cars, tele¬ 
 graph lines, etc.; total value about 
 $323,000. 
 
 Marketing business at Boston, Mass. 
 Marketing business at Newark, N. J. 
 
 Marketing business, South Carolina and 
 Georgia points. 
 
 Marketing business in Iowa and Nebraska. 
 
 Marketing business in Philadelphia. 
 
 Marketing business at Cleveland. 
 
 Marketing business at several Kansas 
 points. 
 
 Marketing business at Kansas City, Mo... 
 
 Oakdale Oil Works. 
 Nicolai Bros. 
 
 Union Refining Co. 
 
 Compounding lubricating oils at New 
 York City, and marketing same. 
 
 Works at Pittsburg; manufacturing mill 
 greases. 
 
 Marketing business in Philadelphia- 
 
 Marketing business in Washington, D. C 
 
 National refinery at Titusville, Pa.. 
 
 Schwartz refinery at Titusville, Pa. 
 
 Western refinery at Titusville, Pa. 
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 Manner of combination or acquisition; whether ac¬ 
 quired in whole or in part, and amount paid 
 therefor. 
 
 Entire stock purchased for $28,018.36. 
 
 These refining companies, and 45 per 
 cent of stock of W. & A. P. L. Co., 
 acquired from D. P. Reighard (who 
 had once been bought out by Stand¬ 
 ard in 1886), for $1,224,800 of trust cer¬ 
 tificates and $50,000 in cash. 
 
 (5) 
 
 Former owners of property who there¬ 
 upon received stock in Standard 
 organization. 
 
 Property purchased for $30,000. 
 
 Stock purchased for $34,612 in cash and 
 $6,500 in trust certificates. 
 
 Property purchased. 
 
 Stock purchased for $25,000. 
 Stock purchased for $5,000... 
 Stock purchased for $1,900... 
 Property, purchased. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 4). P. Reighard 
 
 Pennsylvania Lubricating Co. organized 
 to carry on the business; former owners 
 receiving minority of stock. 
 
 Property and business purchased. 
 _do. 
 
 Combined weekly still capacity 10,000 to 
 12,000 barrels. Also stock in United 
 States Pipe Line Co. 
 
 Manner of acquisition not shown, but 
 at least one former owner became inter¬ 
 ested in Standard. 
 
 John Fertig 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 Whether plants were thereafter oper¬ 
 ated or dismantled. 
 
 Continued until 1892. 
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 References 
 
 19:646; 3:1509; 7:455. 
 
 J Refineries dismantled; pipe 
 \ lines perhaps utilized. 
 
 Continued_ 
 
 (No evidence). 
 
 Discontinued.. 
 
 6:3133-3137; 7:426, 455, 457, 501; 17:3331, 
 3332; 19:644, 648. 
 
 do. 
 
 Operated as bogus independent. 
 
 Discontinued.. 
 
 Operated as bogus independent. 
 
 .do... 
 
 Operated 
 
 do. 
 
 Discontinued. 
 
 Operated as bogus independent. 
 
 Dismantled 
 _do_ 
 
 do. 
 
 U. S. Pipe Line Co. stock held 
 and voted annually. 
 
 17:3395; 19:637; 7:457. 
 19:647; 7:457, 426. 
 
 5:2166. 
 
 2:959; 19:646; 7:462, 454. 
 19:646; 6:3206; 2:850; 7:465. 
 2:968; 19:647; 7:457. 
 
 3:1243. 
 
 3:1243. 
 
 17:3389; 19:633. 
 
 17:3393; 19:634. 
 
 2:851. 
 
 13:1195. 
 
 6:2842, 2661; 3169, 3178; 17:3338, 3352; 
 18:28. ’ 
 
 (See brief, vol. 2, pp. 84-88, regarding 
 Standard’s oppressi\e manipulation of 
 prices and offer to buy the pipe lines 
 and all independent refineries affiliated 
 with the United States Pipe Lines.) 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 14 
 
APPENDIX Qard Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 —Continued. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1895 
 
 1896 
 
 1897 
 
 1898 
 
 1899 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 ts were thereafter oper- 
 or dismantled. 
 
 Mutual Oil 
 
 . U. S. Pipe Line 
 s: held and voted 
 
 Internation- 
 
 Crescent P: 
 
 Mellon line 
 
 Crescent re 
 
 Bartels & led 
 
 New Amer 
 
 Commerciajed 
 
 Peoples Oi 
 Argand Re 
 
 Manhattan 
 
 Indiana Pi 
 Co. 
 
 s bogus independ- 
 
 s bogus independ- 
 
 dismantled. All 
 s conveyed to other 
 concerns, except 
 is, which are still 
 in name of Man- 
 il Co., but deliver 
 to Standard. 
 
 dismantled; pipe 
 rated under same 
 lent as Manhattan 
 s. 
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 References. 
 
 6:2842, 2661, 3169, 3178; 17:3338, 3352; 
 18:67. 
 
 6:2842, 2661; 17:3338, 3352; 18:67. 
 
 17:3233, 3325; 19:640. 
 
 17:3325, 3466. 
 
 17:3325. 
 
 17:3481. 
 
 6:3037, 3046-3048. (See brief, vol. 2, 
 p. 582.) 
 
 5:2094-2098. 
 
 5:2098-2104; 12:901. (See brief, vol. 2, 
 p. 553.) 
 
 5:2419; 13:1349; 13:3331, 3337; 19:650. 
 
 (See brief, vol. 1, p. 105.) 
 
 (See brief, vol. 1, p. 111.) 
 
 Climax Oil.. 
 
 Cassetty O -s bogus independ- 
 
 Protection ed. 
 
 Paragon O;. 
 
 72719- 
 
 8:522; 17:3339. 
 
 12:951-955. 
 
 7:510; 2:716, 718. 
 
 6:2803-2809. (See brief, vol. 2, p. 556.) 
 
PPENDIX C. SHEET 9. Partial list of concerns combined with or acquired by Standard Oil interests since the organization of the Standard Oil Company of Oh 
 
 ,10 %n lo/u —uonunueu. 
 
 (1) 
 
 Year. 
 
 (2) 
 
 Name. 
 
 (3) 
 
 Property and business acquired. 
 
 1895 
 
 Mutual Oil Co. 
 
 Refinery at Reno, Pa., weekly still capac¬ 
 ity 3,000 to 4,000 barrels. Also stock 
 in United States Pipe Line Co. 
 
 
 International Oil Works (Ltd.). 
 
 Refinery at Reno, Pa., weekly still capac¬ 
 ity 3,500 to 4,500 barrels. Also stock 
 in United States Pipe Line Co. 
 
 
 Crescent Pipe Line Co. 
 
 Trunk pipe line from western Pennsyl¬ 
 vania oil fields to seaboard near Phila¬ 
 delphia. 
 
 
 Mellon lines. 
 
 Large system of gathering pipe lines (302 
 miles) in western Pennsylvania oil 
 fields; associated with Crescent Pipe 
 Line Co. 
 
 
 Crescent refinery. 
 
 Refinery nearly completed at Marcus 
 Hook, near Philadelphia; associated 
 with Crescent Pipe Line Co. 
 
 1896 
 
 Bartels & Richardson. 
 
 Marketing business in Minnesota, Wis¬ 
 consin, and Dakotas; headquarters at 
 St. Paul. 
 
 1897 
 
 New American Oil Co. 
 
 Marketing in northern Ohio. 
 
 1898 
 
 Commercial Oil Co. 
 
 Marketing business in Georgia. 
 
 Peoples Oil Co. 
 
 o o 
 
 Marketing business, Atlanta and sur¬ 
 rounding territory. ' 
 
 
 Argand Refining Co. 
 
 Refinery at Marietta, Ohio; weekly still 
 capacity 1,800 barrels; also manufac¬ 
 turing railroad lubricating oils. 
 
 1899 
 
 Manhattan Oil Co. 
 
 Pipe lines main and gathering, in north 
 and south Lima oil fields [in Ohio and 
 Indiana]; some producing properties in 
 Ohio and Indiana; a large refinery at 
 Welker, Ohio; between 800 and 900 
 tank cars; and marketed its own pro¬ 
 ducts. 
 
 
 Indiana Pipe Line & Refining 
 
 About 180 miles of pipe line completed, 
 
 
 Co. 
 
 from Indiana oil field to Kankakee, 
 Ill.; and a large refinery at Kankakee 
 completed and ready for operation, 
 except certain of the by-product de¬ 
 partments. 
 
 
 Climax Oil Co 
 
 Caldwell refinery at Titusville. 
 
 
 Cassetty Oil Co. 
 
 Marketing business, headquarters at 
 Nashville, Tenn. 
 
 
 Protection Oil Co. 
 
 Marketing business, headquarters at 
 Cincinnati, Ohio. 
 
 
 Paragon Oil Co. 
 
 Marketing business, Columbus, Ohio. 
 
 (4) 
 
 Manner of combination or acquisition; whether ac¬ 
 quired in whole or in part, and amount paid 
 therefor. 
 
 Manner of acquisition not shown, but at 
 least one former owner became inter¬ 
 ested in Standard. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Entire stock purchased 
 
 (5) 
 
 Former owners of property who there¬ 
 upon received stock in Standard 
 organization. 
 
 S. Y. Ramage 
 
 S. Y. Ramage 
 
 Acquired from Mellon’s, of Pittsburg, 
 when Crescent lines were acquired. 
 
 Acquired from Mellon’s, of Pittsburg, 
 when Crescent Pipe Lines were 
 acquired. 
 
 Property purchased. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 do. 
 
 Plant leased for 10 years and kept idle; 
 subsequently Standard acquired the 
 stock for $180,000. 
 
 Acquired through General Industrials 
 Development Syndicate (Ltd.), of 
 London, for about $2,800,000. (See 
 brief, vol. 1, p. 106 et seq..) 
 
 Acquired from the Cudahy interests of 
 Chicago by the General Industrials 
 Syndicate (Ltd.), of London, about 
 the same time the Manhattan Company 
 was acquired. 
 
 Property purchased for $42,500. 
 Leased for five years. 
 
 Property purchased 
 _do. 
 
 (6) 
 
 Whether plants were thereafter oper¬ 
 ated or dismantled. 
 
 (7) 
 
 References. 
 
 Dismantled. U. S. Pipe Line 
 Co. stock held and voted 
 annually. 
 
 .do. 
 
 6:2842, 2661, 3169, 3178; 17:3338, 3352; 
 18:67. 
 
 6:2842,2661; 17:3338, 3352; 18:67. 
 
 Operated. 17:3233, 3325; 19:640. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 Discontinued.. 17:3481. 
 
 17:3325, 3466. 
 
 17:3325. 
 
 Operated as bogus independ¬ 
 ent. 
 
 Discontinued. 
 
 Operated as bogus independ¬ 
 ent. 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 Refinery dismantled. All 
 properties conveyed to other 
 Standard concerns, except 
 pipe lines, which are still 
 operated in name of Man¬ 
 hattan Oil Co., but deliver 
 their oil to Standard. 
 
 Refinery dismantled; pipe 
 lines operated under same 
 management as Manhattan 
 pipe lines. 
 
 6:3037, 3046-3048. (See brief, vol. 2, 
 p. 582.) 
 
 5:2094-2098. 
 
 5:2098-2104; 12:901. (See brief, vol. 2, 
 p. 553.) 
 
 5:2419; 13:1349; 13:3331, 3337; 19:650. 
 
 (See brief, vol. 1, p. 105.) 
 
 Dismantled. 
 
 Operated as bogus independ¬ 
 ent. 
 
 (See brief, vol. 1, p. 111.) 
 
 Discontinued. 
 _do. 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 15 
 
 8:522; 17:3339. 
 
 12:951-955. 
 
 7:510; 2:716, 718. 
 
 6:2803-2809. (See brief, vol. 2, p. 556.) 
 
APPENDIX C. 
 
 rd Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 —Continued. 
 
 (i) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1899 
 
 1900 
 
 1901 
 
 (2(6) 
 
 vere thereafter oper- 
 Nahismantled. 
 
 C. P. Wagner 
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 References. 
 
 Dixie Oil Co. Aogus independ- 
 06. 
 
 Southern Oil ct>og us independ- 
 
 Pacific Coast O^antled, rebuilt 
 id, Cal. 
 
 Relief Oil Wort 
 Vincennes Oil 
 
 )Ogus independ- 
 
 International C 
 Central Refinic 
 
 Crawfordsville 
 Scofield, Shur 
 
 r mantled. Mar- 
 iness continued 
 c Oil Co. as bo- 
 ident until 1905. 
 
 2:718; 7:510. 
 
 5:2107, 2279; 2:725. (See brief, vol. 2, p. 
 542.) 
 
 5:2358, 2393, 2316. (See brief, vol. 2, p. 
 535.) 
 
 17:3391, 3405; 19:635, 650. 
 
 (See brief, vol. 2, 
 
 8:524; 17:3340. 
 
 5:2521; 6:2835; 2:721. 
 p. 569.) 
 
 3:1113. 
 
 5:2515’-2517. 
 
 5:2515. 
 
 3:1042, 1044, 1152, 1467; 17:3318, 3338; 
 19:650. (See brief, vol. 2, p. 585, et 
 seq.) 
 
 1902 
 
 1904 
 
 Ellis & Cummi) 
 
 Oil Creek refin) 
 
 Lake Carriers’ 
 
 Leader Refinic 
 Toledo Oil Wopogus independ- 
 
 Alabama Oil C^ogus independ- 
 Consumers’ OiPogus independ- 
 
 Independent C. 
 
 Denlinger Bro^ogus independ- 
 06. 
 
 F. P. Joyce Oi 'rhaps as bogus 
 it. 
 
 Southeastern C 
 
 King-Keystone 
 
 72719—1 
 
 8:528; 17:3340. 
 
 8:530; 17:3340. 
 
 5:2100. 
 
 8:534; 17:3340. 
 
 6:3052-3054. (See brief, vol. 2, p. 584.) 
 
 See brief, vol. 2, p. 555. 
 
 2:725; 6:2836. 
 
 13:1191. 
 
 2:849; 17:3400; 19:650. 
 
 2:744. 
 
 2:720; 5:2156; 7:511. 
 
 2:742. 
 
APPENDIX C.—SHEET 10 .—Partial list of concerns combined with or acquired by Standard Oil interests since the organization of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio %n 1870 Continued. 
 
 ( 1 ) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1899 
 
 1900 
 
 1901 
 
 1902 
 
 1904 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 Name. 
 
 C. P. Wagner & Co. 
 Dixie Oil Co. 
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
 Property and business acquired. 
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 Manner of combination or acquisition; whether ac¬ 
 quired in whole or in part, and amount paid 
 therefor. 
 
 Marketing concern. 
 
 Southern Oil Co. 
 
 Pacific Coast Oil Co. 
 
 Marketing business in several Southern 
 States, headquarters at Savannah, Ga. 
 
 Marketing business, Richmond, Va.. 
 
 Relief Oil Works. 
 Vincennes Oil Co. 
 
 International Oil Works 
 Central Refining Co. 
 
 Refinery at Alameda, near San Francisco; 
 producing properties in California; pipe 
 lines; and marketing business. 
 
 Plant at Franklin, Pa. 
 
 Property purchased for about $4,600. 
 Property purchased. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Purchased for $761,000. 
 
 Retail marketing business, Vincennes, 
 
 Ind. 
 
 Marketing business, St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 Crawfordsville Oil Co. 
 
 Scofield, Shurmer & Teagle . . 
 
 Marketing business, headquarters at 
 Brazil, Ind. 
 
 Marketing business, Crawfordsville, Ind. 
 
 (No evidence). 
 
 Property purchased, 
 
 Ellis & Cummings... 
 Oil Creek refinery — 
 Lake Carriers’ Oil Co 
 Leader Refining Co.. 
 Toledo Oil Works — 
 
 Alabama Oil Co... 
 Consumers’ Oil Co 
 
 Independent Oil Co... 
 Denlinger Bros. Oil Co. 
 
 F. P. Joyce Oil Co 
 
 Southeastern Oil Co 
 
 King-Keystone Oil Co 
 
 Refineries at Cleveland and Scio, Ohio 
 (Cleveland Refining Co., and Scio Re¬ 
 fining Co.), large marketing business, 
 by tank wagon and otherwise, in Ohio, 
 Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, 
 Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and other 
 States. An old, active, and aggressive 
 competitor of the Standard. 
 
 Refinery in Pennsylvania. 
 
 Refinery in Pennsylvania. 
 
 Marketing business, Atlanta, Ga. 
 Plant at Taylorstown, Pa. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Property purchased 
 
 Marketing concern, headquarters Toledo, 
 equipped and just ready to start busi¬ 
 ness. 
 
 Marketing business, Birmingham, Ala 
 and vicinity. 
 
 Marketing business, Macon, Ga. 
 
 •> 
 
 Marketing business, Washington, D. 0... 
 
 Marketing business, western Pennsyl¬ 
 vania, headquarters Pittsburg. 
 
 Marketing business in San Francisco. 
 
 Property purchased for about $33,600.00. 
 Property purchased for about $76,000.00. 
 
 Property purchased.. 
 
 Property purchased for about $9,500.00.. 
 Property purchased. 
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
 Former owners of property who there¬ 
 upon received stock in Standard 
 organization. 
 
 Leased for five years. 
 
 Property purchased 
 
 Property purchased 
 Stock purchased.... 
 
 Property purchased 
 
 Marketing business, Birmingham, Ala., 
 and vicinity. 
 
 Marketing business, San Francisco. 
 
 Property purchased for about $4,300.00. 
 
 Purchased refined oil department. 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 16 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 Whether plants were thereafter oper¬ 
 ated or dismantled. 
 
 Discontinued 
 
 Operated as bogus independ¬ 
 ent until 1906. 
 
 Operated as bogus independ¬ 
 ent. 
 
 Refinery dismantled, rebuilt 
 at Richmond, Cal. 
 
 (No evidence). 
 
 Operated as bogus independ¬ 
 ent. 
 
 _do. 
 
 Discontinued. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Refineries dismantled. Mar¬ 
 keting business continued 
 by Republic Oil Co. as bo¬ 
 gus independent until 1905. 
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 References. 
 
 2:718; 7:510. 
 
 5:2107, 2279; 2:725. (See brief, vol. 2, p. 
 542.) 
 
 5:2358, 2393, 2316. (See brief, vol. 2, p. 
 535.) 
 
 17:3391, 3405; 19:635, 650. 
 
 (See brief, vol. 2, 
 
 8:524; 17:3340. 
 
 5:2521; 6:2835; 2:721. 
 p. 569.) 
 
 3:1113. 
 
 5:2515-2517. 
 
 5:2515. 
 
 3:1042, 1044, 1152, 1467; 17:3318, 3338; 
 19:650. (See brief, vol. 2, p. 585, et 
 seq.) 
 
 (No evidence). 
 (No evidence). 
 Discontinued. 
 Dismantled... 
 
 Operated as bogus independ¬ 
 ent. 
 
 Operated as bogus independ¬ 
 ent. 
 
 Operated as bogus independ¬ 
 ent. 
 
 Discontinued. 
 
 Operated as bogus independ¬ 
 ent until 1906. 
 
 Operated, perhaps as bogus 
 independent. 
 
 Discontinued. 
 
 Discontinued. 
 
 8:528; 17:3340. 
 
 8:530; 17:3340. 
 
 5:2100. 
 
 8:534; 17:3340. 
 
 6:3052-3054. (See brief, vol. 2, p. 584.) 
 
 See brief, vol. 2, p. 555. 
 
 2:725; 6:2836. 
 
 13:1191. 
 
 2:849; 17:3400; 19:650. 
 
 2:744. 
 
 2:720; 5:2156;7:511. 
 
 2:742. 
 
APPENDIX C- 
 
 ■d Oil Company of Ohio in 1870— Continued. 
 
 
 
 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 < 
 
 (7) 
 
 Year. 
 
 is 
 
 •e thereafter oper- 
 '• nan tied. 
 
 Keferences. 
 
 1904 
 
 Arctic Oil Wc 
 
 
 2:741, 742. 
 
 
 0. F. Warner. 
 
 
 2:720; 7:511. 
 
 1905 
 
 Star Oil Co. . 
 
 Memphis Oil 
 
 
 2:719; 7:511. 
 
 2:723. 
 
 N o date 
 
 Pierce & Cant 
 
 
 12:718. 
 
 given. 
 
 Southern Oil 
 
 
 2:715; 7:510. 
 
 
 Eastern Oil & 
 
 
 12:721. 
 
 
 Co. 
 
 Penn Oil Co . 
 
 Brooks Oil Co 
 
 [a independent. 
 
 2:743. 
 
 2:720; 5:2517; 7:511. 
 
 
 Illinois Oil Co 
 
 
 2:756. 
 
 
 Mutual Oil Co 
 
 
 2:716. 
 
 
 Peuss Oil Co., 
 
 eus for bogus 
 
 5:2367. 
 
 
 : 
 
 Liberty Oil C< 
 
 Fhnke Bros., i 
 
 Home Safety 
 oncerns. 
 
 3 independent. 
 
 3:1511. 
 
 3:1510. 
 
 
 
 
 
 72719—11 
 
t 
 
 ENDIX C. SHEET 11. Partial list oj concerns combined with or acquired by Standard Oil interests since the organization of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio in 1870 —Continued. 
 
 ^ (-) (3) ( 4 ) ( 5 ) ( 6 ) ( 7 ) 
 
 ( 1 ) 
 
 Year. 
 
 1904 
 
 1905 
 
 No date 
 given. 
 
 (2) 
 Name. 
 
 Arctic Oil Works. 
 
 0. F. Warner_ 
 
 Star Oil Co. 
 
 Memphis Oil Co. 
 
 Pierce & Canterbury.... 
 Southern Oil Tank Line. 
 
 Eastern Oil & Gasoline Supply 
 Co. 
 
 Penn Oil Co . 
 Brooks Oil Co. 
 
 Illinois Oil Co. 
 Mutual Oil Co. 
 Peuss Oil Co.. 
 
 Liberty Oil Co. 
 Funke Bros.... 
 
 Property and business acquired. 
 
 Marketing business, Pacific coast points 
 Marketing business, place not given.... 
 Marketing business in Cincinnati. 
 
 Marketing business, Memphis, Tenn. 
 
 Refinery at Boston. 
 
 % 
 
 Marketing business, Louisville, Ky.. 
 
 Marketing business in Boston. 
 
 Marketing business at Los Angeles, Cal.. 
 Marketing business at Indianapolis..... 
 
 Marketing business at Joliet. 
 
 Marketing business, Dayton, Ohio. 
 
 Marketing business, Baltimore and 
 Washington. 
 
 o 
 
 Marketing business in Boston. 
 
 Marketing business, Brooklyn, N. Y. 
 
 (4) 
 
 Manner of combination or acquisition; whether ac¬ 
 quired in whole or in part, and amount paid 
 therefor. 
 
 Refined oil business purchased 
 Property purchased. 
 
 Leased for one year, and business turned 
 over to Standard of Kentucky. 
 
 Property purchased. 
 
 Property purchased prior to 1902. 
 
 Property purchased for about $7,000 in 
 1899 or earlier. 
 
 Property purchased prior to 1903. 
 
 Property purchased. 
 
 Property purchased about 1904, for about 
 $5,000. 
 
 Property purchased.. 
 
 Property purchased.. 
 
 Property purchased about 1901. 
 
 Property purchased prior to 1898. 
 Property purchased about 1900 .. 
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
 Former owners of property who there¬ 
 upon received, stock in Standard 
 organization. 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 Whether plants were thereafter oper¬ 
 ated or dismantled. 
 
 Discontinued. 
 Discontinued. 
 Discontinued. 
 
 Discontinued. 
 Dismantled... 
 Discontinued. 
 
 Continued. 
 
 Discontinued. 
 
 Operated as bogies independent. 
 
 Discontinued. 
 
 Discontinued. 
 
 Utilized as nucleus for bogus 
 independent Home Safety 
 Oil Delivery concerns. 
 
 (No evidence). 
 
 Operated as bogus independent. 
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 .References. 
 
 2:741, 742. 
 
 2:720; 7:511. 
 
 2:719; 7:511. 
 
 2:723. 
 
 12:718. 
 
 2:715; 7:510. 
 
 12:721. 
 
 2:743. 
 
 2:720; 5:2517; 7:511. 
 
 2:756. 
 
 2:716. 
 
 5:2367. 
 
 3:1511. 
 
 3:1510. 
 
 72719—11. (To face page 68.) No. 17 
 
 o