Page:The History of the Standard Oil Company Vol 2.djvu/379

 Affiant says that it is not true that "at the time when said agreement was signed, said plaintiff was endeavouring by contracts with divers persons to establish a monopoly in the manufacture of refined oil in the state of Ohio and in the United States." Affiant avers that it has made but one other contract with other persons like the one made with defendants, and that was a contract made at the same date, viz., July 20, 1876, with the Pioneer Oil Company of the City of Cleveland, of which the defendants had full knowledge. Affiant further says that he was present and participated in the negotiations which resulted in the formation of the contract with these defendants, and that it is not true that said contract was entered into for the purpose of monopolising the trade in refined oil or for the purpose of enhancing the price thereof and maintaining an unnaturally high price for the same; and affiant says that it is not true that plaintiff by said contract, and by the said other contract made with the same design, succeeded in creating a substantial monopoly and averting competition, and maintaining an unnaturally high price for refined oil; but said contract was made, as is therein stated, for the purpose of equalising the business of manufacturing oil and giving to each of said contracting parties their due proportion thereof, and that the amount of 85,000 barrels per annum to which the distillation of defendants is by said contract limited is, as agreed, a relative proportion to their full capacity, as is the amount distilled by plaintiff per annum since said contract was entered into to its total capacity for refining oil; and it is not true that said agreement is in restraint of trade and against public policy, as alleged in the said answer of defendants, Shurmer and Teagle. Affiant says that on or about the first day of October, 1879, it came to his knowledge that the defendants had, in violation of said agreement, distilled about 22,984 barrels of oil more than they were entitled to by the terms of said agreement, and thereupon he had an interview with defendants, W. C. Scofield and John Teagle, who admitted the defendants had distilled in excess of the quantity stipulated in the contract, and agreed to reduce the quantity distilled during the year following, July 20, 1879, by the amount they had already distilled in excess up to that date, but requested they might be allowed to distribute said reduction equally over each six months of the year instead of wholly in either the first or last six months of the year following July 20, 1879, to which request affiant assented.

Affiant says that it is not true that "the plaintiff, on the fourth day of March, 1880, with full knowledge of how much oil in excess of 85,000 barrels per year had been manufactured by defendants and plaintiff, demanded of said defendants that they should pay to plaintiff the entire profits upon said excess," other than as is hereinafter stated; and it is not true that plaintiff, at the time it demanded said profits, claimed that it had any monopoly, or that its monopoly was so perfect that it would have sold said excess if defendants had not, or that it was entitled to said profits in consequence of any monopoly; but affiant says that it did claim the profits upon the oil sold in excess of said 85,000 barrels, because defendants had broken their agreement with said