The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-11-10
The FIRST CLASH.
Standard Oil and State Meet
in Battle.
Preliminary Motions Argued in
Supreme Court.
EVANS WAS STOPPED.
Court Told Standard Attorney
to Limit His Argument.
Both sides viii File Briefs in
the Case.

DAC Ease
The first clash Of the state Of Kansas
with the Standard Oh company. in the
pending custer suit, occurred F-iday af-
ternoon in the supreme court. Attorneys
representing the Standard presented
their arguments on their motion 10 re-
quire the state to make its petition
more definite and certain. and the at
torneys for the state replied to the ar
guments.
Earl Evans. of Wichita, of the firm
Of Stanley, Vermnlion & Evans, and J.
B. F. Gates of independence, represent
ed the Standard. Evans is attorney for
the StandardA0iI co4npany in Kansas,
and Gates is general attorney for the
Prairie Oil & Gas company, the kan
sas branch of the Standard.
Attorney General Coleman and As
sistant Attorney General F. S. Jackson
spoke on behalf Of the state
Evans started the argument, and was
going into al elaborate presentation Of
the points urged for q revision Of the
states petition. He had Just gotten a
GOOD start when Chief Justice Johnston
interrupted with the remark.
You are limited to Is minutes in
your argument. and you have already
consumed 16 minutes"
We'll, your honors, I did not know
that was the rule,'' said Evans. There
are some other matters I wanted to pre-
sent"
will allow you FIVE minutes
more" said Judge Johnston.
Evans did some fast talking in the
next five minutes, but it cut out Mr..
Gates from making any argument at
Attorney General Coleman then talk
ed ten minutes, and Mr.. Jackson closed
with a I'VE minute speech.
which to file briefs.
we believe that the state should be
required to separately state and num-
Der its causes of action. This petition
appears to be predicated Upon the laws
of 1889, 1897 and 1889. The laws of 1888
and 1899 are entirely different in pur-
pose and penalties from the law Of 1887,
and we think that the various allega-
tons should be separated, 50 tina there
may be no confusion. We want to raise
certain questions by demurrer to the ac-
ton under a portion Of the laws. Under
the laws of 1888 and 1899. quo warranto
does not lie, while under the other law
it does lie.
The general antitrust law says
nothing about monopoly. Under the
provisions of the law of 1899 We are
not permitted to have a monopoly.
This petition also alleges seven or
eight separate contracts or agree
ments, not in anyway connected. II
these are separate contracts, they
should be separately numbered.
There is a vast difference between
a contract in restraint of trade and a
conspiracy in restraint of trade. The
state has confused that part based on
acy."
Attorney General Coleman said in
reply:
There is really only one cause Of
action in-this ease, n hat is custer.
This cause OF action is based on sew
eral grounds. 4 divorce suit may be
based on a umhe of grounds. It
may charge cruelty, or abandonment,
or n-on-support. but these are are not
separate causes of action. The cause
Of action is the divorce.
we allege that the defendant has
been guilty of q violation of each OF
the statutes. mentioned. but our cause
of action in custer. The petition is
divided into paragraphs. which are not
counts There is nothing hic makes
it necessary for US to allege separate
causes of action. We aIlege some Of
lenses under the law of 1899, some
under the law of 1899, but they are all
the same cause of action.
ANY corporation that violates the
laws of h state may be ousted from
the state, whether that corporation f.
a Kansas corporation or not. We con-
tend that when the laws Of the state
are violated by d corporation. that cor
poration should be ousted. and that IS
the purpose of this suit,
Fred S. Jackson supplemented the
remarks of General Coleman as fol-
; lows:
r There is only one wrong complains
ed Of in this petition. I can not agree
/ with the attorney for the defendant
that there is such a vital difference be-
tween contract and combination. tt IS
t for the courts to say whether the con
tract OF combination constitutes a
wrong There is no law in the state
which makes monopoly a crime, but =
there IS an agreement or conspiracy to
t constitute q monopoly that is in viola
2 ton of law"
} The court took the proposition un-
der advisement. and Will consider tire
l briefs which will be filed before rem
dering a decision. The Standard 81
I company IN It's motion to make the
a states petition more dednit Il Ger
tain want the state to give hi names.
dates and particulars about all the al
legged contracts and combinations en-
; tered into, calculated to produce q
s m~onnnaIv or act In Restraint Of frada