the entire country, and by which it might not merely control the production, but the price, at its pleasure. All such associations are contrary to the policy of our state and void.
.........
"Much has been said in favour of the objects of the Standard Oil Trust and what it has accomplished. It may be true that it has improved the quality and cheapened the cost of petroleum and its products to the consumer. But such is not one of the usual or general results of a monopoly; and it is the policy of the law to regard, not what may, but what usually happens. Experience shows that it is not wise to trust human cupidity where it has the opportunity to aggrandise itself at the expense of others. The claim of having cheapened the price to the consumer is the usual pretext on which monopolies of this kind are defended."[1]
From all this the court decided the Standard Oil Company deserved punishment. The charter was not taken away—the statute of limitations being advanced as a reason for this leniency, although, as Mr. Watson and Mr. Warrington showed, the statute of limitations could hardly be pleaded in this case, when the state had been kept in ignorance by the concealment of the agreement. The company was allowed to live, but it was ousted from the privilege of entering into the trust agreement, from the power of recognising the transfer of the stock, and from the power of permitting the trustees to control its affairs. It was also ordered to pay the costs of the action.
The judgment of the court was not rendered until March 2, 1892, almost two years after the filing of the petition. As soon as it was received Virgil P. Kline, the chief counsel of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio, went to New York for consultation with the trustees. Five days later he wrote to
- ↑ History of Standard Oil Case in the Supreme Court of Ohio, 1897-1898. Part I, pages 27-28. Original opinion of the court.
[ 150 ]
