Standard Oil Company; Trusts, Industrial -- United States
One interesting feature of the contract which was the subject of the
"adventure" described in the chapter "Not to Exceed Half" was repeated
here. The representative who "took up this matter" with the widow
carried on his bargaining in great part with the minor stockholders,
one of whom claimed afterwards that all he had done was under her
directions, and "to her entire satisfaction." But she was entirely
unaware of either her "directions" or her "satisfaction." "He never
had the slightest authority from me to represent me in any way in the
sale."[115]
Another of the minor stockholders also busied himself in representing
her without her knowledge. On behalf of the widow agents were making
figures, though she knew nothing of their agency or the figures.
By these combined efforts a sale was finally concluded at figures
which, though she owned seven-tenths of the property, she had never
authorized, and were far below the only figures she had given as those
she was willing to take.
Compelled to deal with a subordinate against her will, fearing to
remain in so hazardous an occupation, and yet needing for her children
the income it brought her, this woman manufacturer's position was most
harassing. All through, as her cashier and treasurer told the court,
she was dissatisfied, felt that she was compelled to sell though she
wanted to retain her property.
"In my hearing," her confidential clerk said, "she declared she sold
because she was compelled to do so."
She told her fellow-stockholders that she had been informed by the
agent who was dealing with her, that if they did not sell out it would
only be a question of time before they would be forced to sell out, as
he intended to place oil like that made by her company in the hands of
all their agents, to undersell them and close them out. This decided
them to sell.
"Inasmuch as the managers of the Standard Oil Company appeared to have
made up their minds to obtain this property, and not to give them the
chance they had before in competition," the stockholders, as one of
them testified, "concluded it better to sell the property at such price
as they could then get, rather than to run the risk of a still greater
loss in the future, not one of the stockholders desiring to part with
the property at all, but rather choosing with fair competition to
retain their interest in the property."[116]
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account