Standard Oil Company; Trusts, Industrial -- United States
As it had been authorized to do so by the State, the City Council of
Toledo, April 29, 1889, ordered gas bonds to the amount of $75,000
sold, that work on the city pipe line might begin. Before proceeding
with the enterprise confided to them, the natural-gas trustees gave
the private companies an opportunity to save themselves from the
competition of the city. They asked them in writing if they would agree
to furnish gas cheaply for a term of years, or if they would sell
their entire plant to the city? They did this, as they expressed it,
as "an honorable effort ... to obtain cheaper gas without unnecessary
expenditure, and without injury to established rights." After a
delay of nearly a month a reply was received, refusing to enter into
negotiations either for a reduction of charges or for the sale of the
private plants to the city. The trustees then asked for a personal
interview, but this was refused. Then when the city began preparations
to sell its bonds, a cannonade was opened on it in the courts, the
money-market, the gas-fields, the city government, the press, among
the citizens, and everywhere. Injunctions were applied for in three
courts, unsuccessfully in all instances. No injunction was ever granted
in these or any other of the many suits brought for the purpose of
enjoining the sale of the bonds. Courts will usually grant temporary
injunctions awaiting a hearing on the merits when complainants will
enter into ample bonds and indemnify defendants. But the parties
instigating this litigation would not put up the necessary bonds. They
thus could smirch the bonds without incurring any personal liability in
so doing.
An expensive array of lawyers was sent before the United States
courts to prevent the issue of the bonds on the ground that they were
illegal, and the law under which they were issued unconstitutional.
The principle involved had been frequently discussed and always upheld
both by the Supreme Court of Ohio and the Supreme Court of the United
States.[517]
"Does not your argument appear to be in conflict with the views of the
Supreme Court of Ohio and the Supreme Court of the United States?" the
judge asked. The counsel for the gas companies responded in substance:
"If so, then so much the worse for the views of those courts."
As it was through the suffrage that the people of Toledo were able to
do this, the attack was widened from an attack on the enterprise to one
upon the sovereignty of the citizens which made it possible. "Everybody
votes in Ohio--in fact, too many people," said the lawyer who applied
for an injunction against Toledo. If he had his way, he declared, there
would be fewer voters, and he stigmatized the arguments of Toledo as
those of John Most, the communist.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account