The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1907-10-21
What Is it, and How Can
Merged Concerns Be
Combined Cues
ton ?
Claim Antitrust Law
Not Retroactive, and
Consolidation Ante
dates Sherman
Statute.

NEW YORK. Oct I-An outline OF
the defense TO be made by the standard
On. Company in the Government suit TO
dissolve the Sl0O, OO0, 0U0 corporltion-the
first autheruc statement-was today
from one CT the chief lawyers repre-
senting the Rockefeller interests. In
the first place the Government viii be
ASKED this braud-new riddle:
What is d monopoly"
Then quickly viii follow a demand to
know whether 1t Is possible TO com
bine things that already are parts OF
the same whole?'
The first question IS expected to prove
the subject OF more arguments than
any riddle that has received oflciai
recognition in half "a century. 1t viii
be the subject of profound opinions
from the highest courts Of the land.
The Sherman antitrust law declares a
monopoly 10 be unlawful. Standard OIL
says the act fails to define the term
and no court decisions can be found by
The Rockefeller lawyers bearing upon
the subject
What Is a Monopoly?
rs monopoly the control Of 100 per
cent OF a business is the first question
the Standard Oil lawyers viii ask II
that is so interpreted they say their
corporation can clear itself Of the
charge IN .ive minutes, as there are
many Independent oil concerns through-
out tile country, even though they are
OF comparatively small proportions
Then what is monopoly" asks
Standard Oil rs ii % per cent is il
80 per celt, or 20 per cent? They charge
us with being monopoly, but we can't
md out what that is. How can they
prove We are. something that never has
been defned2'
one dictionary definition says.
~ monopoly is the exclusive right
power. OF privilege of ENGAGING in a
particular traffic OF business OF the re-
sLltiEg absolute possession or control"
But the men who write dictionaries
are not judges sitting in courts of
equity
Law Not Retroactive.
The other part Of the defense is based
upon the assertion that the Standard
OIL combination was formed eight years
before the Sherman antitrust law went
into force in 1890. The law is not retro
active. The Standard says il did not
pretend 10 affect combinations made
previous to its enactment. Standard Oil
makes this explanation:
when, the various oil companies were
combined under trust agreement Of 1852,
the laws of the land permitted it. The
business was centralized. When the
Sherman law was enacted the Standard
Oil business was a single concern. and
Is yet Il has combined with nothing
except itself"
In the reorganization of 1893. when the
capital stock of the Standard Oil Com
pany OF New Jersey was raised from
SltUJOOOJ to 100000, and il took over
the stock of twenty subsidiary com
panies, II viii be cOntended there was
no combination.
Posers for Federal Attorneys.
The charge is that Standard OIL is a
combination in restraint Of trade" The
Standard Oil VIII ask the court this
question:
How could there be any restraint Of
trade in such a combination of com
panies between which no competition
existed2"
STANDARD Oil capital and Standard OIL
energy have established many new bust
nesses and created much new traffic Can
you absorb thing that has been Gre
own labOr?"
So with these two general theories of
OeIense, Standard Oil attorneys have
made but little effort TO prevent the
government from getting most complete
ana intricate data regarding the BUSH
ness. They are willing to admit that
the various subsidiary companies are
controlled by the Standard of New Jer-
sey. They hardly listened during the
long examinations of witnesses about
the financial affairs of The companies.
They believe that the case hangs on the
general propositions set forth here for