and the American Tobacco Co. will have "Sweet Caporal," a littlecigar brand of a distinct type. EXHIBIT 9 RESPONDENTS AMENDED RETURN TO THE ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS1 Respondents for a further return to the said alternative writ of mandamus, say that neither of relators has any direct personal interest in said Waters-Pierce Oil Company, and neither of them in his own right, or in his own interest, or in the pursuit of his own business, owns any of the stock of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company; but respondents say that said relators are acting herein solely as the representatives of John D. Rockefeller, William Rockefeller, Henry M. Flagler, John D. Archbold, Oliver H. Payne, Charles M. Pratt, and divers other persons whose names are to respondents unknown, who are the same parties who have heretofore owned and controlled the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, which has been heretofore dissolved by the courts of the United States as an unlawful combination in restraint of trade, as will be hereinafter more particularly set forth, and that said individuals so represented by relators have combined and confederated to continue said unlawful combination and conspiracy thus dissolved. Respondents further say that said unlawful combination and conspiracy now existing consists in the control of the majority of stock in subsidiary corporations located in different States, and that such stock control is the essential and effective means of furthering the purposes of said unlawful combination, the purpose and effect of which is to create a monopoly in the production and sale of petroleum and its products throughout the United States. 1 State of Missouri ex rel. Stewart v. J. D. Johnson. Pleadings, Rulings by the Court etc., In the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, April Term, 1912, pp. 40 ff. This controversy arose by reason of the refusal of the Inspectors of Election of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, that had been designated by Mr. Pierce as President, to count the majority votes of the Company that had been cast at the instance of the Standard Oil interests. This refusal was based on the ground that the shares were being illegally voted in furtherance of a conspiracy to violate and evade the decree of the Federal Court. Although Mr. Pierce owns only approximately one-third of the shares he has been in control of the Waters-Pierce Company and under the Missouri Law the President names the Inspectors of Election. Upon the refusal to count these votes the proxies named by the Standard Oil brought a proceeding in mandamus in the State of Missouri against the Inspectors of Election.-Ed. Respondents further say that the relators herein are acting solely as the representatives of said unlawful combination and conspiracy in attempting to secure the control of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, and that the means by which the objects of said conspiracy are sought to be carried out are the election of a majority of the directorate of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company and other subsidiary corporations in different States, which should thus be composed either of the parties to said conspiracy or the nominees of those engaged therein; and by this means the complete domination of the industry will be effected and a monopoly secured therein. Respondents say that the relators herein are parties to said conspiracy, and are under its control, and are its nominees for the said purpose, and that the attempt to elect them to the directorate of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company is for the purpose of securing the control of said company in the furtherance of said unlawful conspiracy and as one of the overt acts in effectuating this common design in the establishment of said monopoly. Respondents say that this proceeding in mandamus is a furtherance of said unlawful purpose. Respondents further say that the unlawful combination and conspiracy, violative of the laws of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, which is thus sought to be effected by these relators, in securing the control of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, is a continuance and renewal of the same unlawful combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade which has been adjudged and condemned by the Supreme Court of Missouri, affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States and by the Circuit Court of the United States, the Eighth Judicial Circuit, affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, as hereinafter specifically set forth. Wherefore, respondents say that relators are merely acting in behalf of said unlawful combination and conspiracy, and for furthering the purposes thereof, and that the jurisdiction and process of this court should not be used to accomplish any such unlawful end or purpose. X And respondents further say: That the relator, George W. Mayer, until two days before the annual election for directors of the WatersPierce Oil Company, was manager at Kansas City, Missouri, for the Standard Oil Company of Indiana, and had been for more than ten years prior to that time; that he resigned his said position of manager for the Standard Oil Company of Indiana at Kansas City to accept election to the Board of Directors of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company; that his resignation as aforesaid was in obedience to the dictation of the vice-president, or president, of the Standard Oil Company of Indiana, and was a mere pretense to enable the Standard Oil Company of Indiana through him by his election to the board of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company to gain control of the management of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company. That the relator, Robert W. Stewart, has been attorney and counsel for the Standard Oil Company of Indiana and other interests affiliated and associated with the said Standard Oil Company of Indiana and the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, and the managers and stockholders of said two companies; and that said Stewart at the instance and request of the officers and majority shareholders of each of said two companies acquired a share of stock in the Waters-Pierce Oil Company in order to enable him through the vote and influence of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Standard Oil Company of Indiana, and their respective officers, agents, employes and controlling shareholders to become a director of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company at the annual election for directors, to be held on the 15th day of February, 1912, and thereby enable the said Standard Oil Company of Indiana, its officers, agents and the holders of the majority of its stock through the election of said Stewart and said Mayer and Adams to dominate and control in the interest of said Standard Oil Company of Indiana and its majority shareholders, officers and agents the affairs of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company. The respondents aver that to permit the election of the relators as directors of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company would be to place the affairs of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company under the complete domination and control of the Standard Oil Company of Indiana, and the majority owners of the stock of the Standard Oil Company of Indiana. Respondents further say that since the 13th day of February, 1909, as directed by a decree of the Supreme Court of Missouri, in a proceeding wherein the State of Missouri upon the information of the Attorney-General against the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, the Standard Oil Company of Indiana and the Republic Oil Company, the affairs of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company have been conducted by Henry Clay Pierce and Clay Arthur Pierce in complete independence of the Standard Oil Company of Indiana and of all other combinations whatsoever as required by the order of the Court in that case to be done. That the Standard Oil Company of Indiana and the Waters-Pierce Oil Company are competitors in the business of selling the products of petroleum, as was held in the case above mentioned, and that if the Standard Oil Company of Indiana, through the relators and the holders of the majority of stock of the said Standard Oil Company of Indiana, should gain control of the affairs of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, as is proposed by the relators in this proceeding, the corporate charter of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company will be thereby forfeited, and the said Henry Clay Pierce and the minority shareholders of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company associated with him will sustain great and serious loss through the forfeiture of the charter of the said Waters-Pierce Oil Company, as well as in the management of the affairs of that company, for that those whom the relators represent as aforesaid herein have a greater interest in promulgating the success of the Standard Oil Company of Indiana than that of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company. Relators further say that on the 29th day of March, 1905, the State of Missouri, upon the information of the Attorney-General, instituted in the Supreme Court of the State a proceeding in quo warranto against the Standard Oil Company of Indiana, the WatersPierce Oil Company and the Republic Oil Company from doing business in the State of Missouri and to forfeit the charter of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company because they were then and had theretofore been engaged in a combination in restraint of trade in the State of Missouri. That such proceeding was had in said case as that on the 9th day of March, 1909, a judgment of ouster was entered in said cause against the Standard Oil Company of Indiana and the Republic Oil Company, a non-resident corporation, and a judgment conditionally forfeiting the charter of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, a domestic corporation, as alleged in the alternative writ herein. That from said judgment and decree the Standard Oil Company of Indiana and said Republic Oil Company appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and pending said appeal a supersedeas was granted said appellant, but that no appeal was taken therefrom by the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, which, as aforesaid, submitted to said decree and obeyed the same, and pending the said appeal a supersedeas was granted said appellants; but thereafter, at the October Term, 1911, on April 1, 1912 said cause having been duly submitted, the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri was in all things affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, so that said decree is now in full force and effect as to said Standard Oil Company of Indiana and said Republic Oil Company, as well as to said Waters-Pierce Oil Company. That amongst other things, it was decreed in said case as follows: "But it is further considered, ordered and adjudged by this Court, that if the said Waters-Pierce Oil Company shall pay said fine to the clerk of this court on or before the first day of March, 1909, and shall immediately cease all connection with the said respondents herein in continuing or maintaining said pool, trust and conspiracy to fix, control and regulate the prices of naphtha, benzine, gasoline, kerosene, lubricating oil and all other products of petroleum, and shall refrain from all pools, trusts and combinations, to control the prices of said products of petroleum, and all combines and conspiracies to prevent competition in the trade of buying and selling said products and shall furnish this Court with satisfactory evidence of its compliance with this judgment and of its intention in good faith to cease all connection with its said co-respondents herein and all other parties or companies whatsoever and in the future maintain and carry on the business as an independent corporation in obedience to the laws of this State and its charter, then the judgment of the ouster herein shall be and is hereby suspended and the writ of ouster herein will not issue until expressly directed by the order of this Court." Respondents further pray preference to the said proceeding as reported in Volume 218 of the Official Reports of the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. Respondents further say that on the 15th day of February, 1909, the Waters-Pierce Oil Company filed in said court the following acceptance of said decree, accompanied by a duly exemplified copy of the resolution of its Board of Directors in that behalf, to-wit: "Comes now the Waters-Pierce Oil Company in the aboveentitled cause, pursuant to the order and judgment rendered herein, and files herewith a duly certified copy of a resolution of its Board of Directors, passed February 13, 1909, wherein |