Page:The History of the Standard Oil Company Vol 2.djvu/182

 tion of the law of Ohio, the Standard Oil Company had entered into an agreement by which it had transferred 34,993 shares out of 35,000 to the trustees of the Standard Oil Trust, most of whom were non-residents of the state; that it was these trustees who chose the board of directors of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio, and directed its policy, and prayed that, on account of this violation of law, the company should be "adjudged to have forfeited and surrendered its corporate rights, privileges, powers and franchises, and that it be ousted and excluded therefrom, and that it be dissolved."

The petition came on the trust like a thunderbolt. There had been already more or less erratic and ill-advised anti-trust legislation in various states, but it had been framed in ignorance of the actual organisation of the trust, and carried out with a crude notion that the trust, in spite of the fact that it was already thoroughly intrenched in the business life of the country, could be destroyed by a hostile act of a Legislature. Mr. Watson's suit was something very different. It was an application of recognised laws to admitted facts. It brought the Standard Oil Company face to face with several legal propositions it did not like to meet. After a long delay an answer was filed by the Standard. To Mr. Watson's joy, the one thing he feared—the denial of the correctness of the agreement—made no part of this answer. It admitted the agreement, but it denied that the Standard Oil Company of Ohio was a party to it. The agreement was signed by the individual stockholders of the Standard Oil Company, not by the company in its corporate capacity. The Standard Oil Company of Ohio had nothing to do with the Standard Oil Trust. True, certain of its stockholders had turned over their stock to the nine trustees, but the company did its business as before, discharging all its duties as its charter required. This was the essential point of the defendant's answer. This, and the claim that if the court should hold that the action of the stockholders