OCR Text |
Show TRUsf MissouriSupremeCourt's Decision Against the Standard Oil ! Jefferson City, Mo., March 9. Th motions by the Standard OH Company of Indiana aud tho Republic Oil Conv pany of Ohio for a re-hearing of th ouster suit recently decided against I them for a mndlfi ... jUUfe- ment were overruled by the Missouri Supreme court today. Thu position of the Waters-Pierce Oil company was upheld, tho motion of the attorney general for an abaoluto ouster of the Missouri company being denied, the compliance with the court order recently filed by the company approved, and the judgment of ouster against it being suspended. The effect of these decisions is to expel th Indiana and Ohio companies from Missouri and to restore the Wat ers-Pirrcy compon'. sixty per cent of whose stock is held by tho Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, the right to do business within the state. No formal opinion in the premise was rea.L Chief Justice Valliant fim-ply fim-ply announcing lie gist of the court' decision. Justices Lamm and Woodson Wood-son dissented. " The Standard Oil interests are ex-px"ted ex-px"ted to appeal from the decision and carry their civ? a to the eupreme court of the United States. The decision i3 considered a great victory for ibe Waters-Pierce company and Incidentally for the minority ln-teresls ln-teresls of that concern who claim to have been making unavailing efforts to free the company from control by the New Jersey corporations. With, this object in view, they declined to approve the proposition made by the Standard Oil company of Indlann.that that company be allowed to continue business in the state under a trusteeship trustee-ship composed, of representatives ol the court and the company. With the -judgment of ouster -mado absolute against the Standard Oil company ot Indiana and the Republic Oil company, these concerns must now pay their fines of $50,000 each, aud cease business busi-ness in the state. The 50.000 tine assessed against the Waters-Pierce company has been paid. In conjunction conjunc-tion with the certified check which tho Missouri company filed with the clerk of the court, there was presented a document "accepting" the court's original or-iginal decree which carried a conditional condi-tional penult to continue business. These provisions Included that tha company must be so reorganized as to be free from Standard Oil control. Thero was nothing in the document to show that thij had been done ami on this basis the attorney general moved that the ouster decree be made effective at once When informed or the action today, the attorney general said: "The decision of the courts ! simply means that the Waters-Pierce ! company will not be ousted from the state at this time. However, the orig-i orig-i inal judgment of the-court will stand against it. so that if It violates the court's decree, the state can renew its application for ouster. I "The state asked that the court make the ouster decree immediately as we contended the Waters-Pierce company had not complied with the , conditions laid down by the supreme court in the first instance." The following order was made by the court in relation to the Waters-Pierce Waters-Pierce company: - "The Waters Pieree Oil company having tendered into court the amount of the fine Imposed upon it by the j judgment of this court, and having given satisfactory evidence of its purpose, pur-pose, henceforth, so to conduct its bus- " iness as not to violate the law of this fctate in regard to the pools, trusts and conspiracies, it is ordered by the court that tho clerk or. this court receive the money so tendered, and pay th same into the state treasury, and it is further ordered that the judgment of this court of date of December 23. 1908. ousting the Waters-Pierce Oil company of its charter and adjudging all its rights and privileges thereunder thereun-der forfeited and annulled, be and tho same Is hereby1 suspended until otherwise other-wise ordered by the court, but the court will retain jurisdiction of th'J case for the purpose of setting asido and annulling this order or modifying the same If tho court should hereaKei; on motion of the attorney general, or its own motion, become satisfied that the Wraters-Pierce Oil company is at that time ochas been conducting its ' business in a manner forbidden by thfl laws of this state in relation to pools, trusts and conspiracies." In their dissenting opinion tiled with the order. Justices Woodson and IiHmm hold that tho Waters-Pierce, company has not complied with the court's order sio withdraw from tho "trust" relation with tho other coax-panics. |