them, but claimed that their business had been carried on at a large profit. "There is such a large margin between the price of crude oil and refined," declared the defendants, "that the manufacture and sale of refined oil is attended with large profit; it is impossible to supply the demand of the public for oil if the business and refineries of both plaintiff and defendant are carried on and run to their full capacities, and if the business of the defendants were stopped, as prayed for by the plaintiff, it would result in a still higher price for refined oil and the establishment of more perfect monopoly in the manufacture and sale of the same by plaintiff." To establish such a monopoly, the defendants went on to declare, had been the sole object of the Standard Oil Company in making this contract with them, and similar ones with other firms, to establish a monopoly and so maintain unnaturally high prices,[1] and certainly Scofield, Shurmer and Teagle knew whereof they swore, for they had shared in the spoils of the winter of 1876 and 1877, and at this very period, October, 1880, they were witnessing an attempt to repeat the coup.
The charge of monopoly Scofield, Shurmer and Teagle sustained by a remarkable array of affidavits—the most damaging set for the Standard Oil Company which had ever been brought together. It contained the affidavits of various individuals who had been in the refining business in Cleveland at the time of the South Improvement Company and who had sold out in the panic caused by it. It contained a review of the havoc which that scheme and the manipulation of the railroads by the Standard which followed it had caused in the refining trade in Pennsylvania, and it gave the affidavits of Mrs. B—and of her secretary and others concerning the circumstances of her sale in 1878 (see Chapter VI). The affidavits filed by John D. Rockefeller, Oliver H. Payne and Henry M. Flagler in reply to the set presented by Sco-
- ↑ See Appendix, Number 43. Answer of William C. Scofield et al.
[ 70 ]
