Omaha daily bee., 1909-04-10
No CRIME TO FORM OIL TRUST
Attorney Watson Asserts John D.
Violated No Law.
PAST DEEDS OF NO EFFECT NOW
Emphasized Theory tho Action OF
Defendant In Former Days
Does Not Eject Prose-
cutfon.

ST. LOUIS. April a-David T. Watson.
Pittsburg's most noted corporation lawyer,
this morning concluded his argument upon
the law from the viewpoint OF the defense
in the suit instituted by the government
in the federal tribunal of this district to
have the Standard oil company of New
Jersey dissolved as a persistent violator
of the Sherman antitrust act.
Mr.. Watson, who appeared as the gov
ernment's counsel I'm the now famous
Northern Securities case, and whose argu-
ment is credited with having won that
suit for the government, to a great de-
gree repeated his argument of yesterday
afternoon, dwelling with more particularly
upon the details Of the, law as he insisted
II should be construed by the court. Again
and again the Pittsburg lawyer empha-
sized his first legal proposition, that II
mattered not what the defendants might
have done in former days, the only cues
ton for the court, from his viewpoint, was
whether the Standard OIL was engaged in
restraining m and Engaging in un-
fair competition on November 16, 1906, when
the bill of complaint was filed against it.
Not Liable Under Common Law.
Mr.. Watson also took issue with Prose
cutor Kellogg's o~ft-repeated contention that
the men forming the standard were liable
and guilty as alleged under the federal
common law. There is not today and
never was a crime possible under the fed
eral common law declared Mr.. Watson.
Nor is there in all this great mass Of tes-
timony a single sentence of evidence to
prove that the defendants we're guilty OF a
violation of any provisions of the Sherman
act on November 10, 1906, and what, 1
49, H. -.
honorable court for review"
Moritz Rosenthal, the Standards $1,000 a
day legal advisor, and who has taken the
greater portion of the 1900, 900 words OF
evidence in the present case, has recovered
from his temporary indisposition and was
early about his hotel. Mr.. Rosenthal will
take up the argument of the defense fol-
lowing Lawyer Watson. Many expected
that the noted Chicago lawyer, who Sc
cured the reversal of the governments
t29,oOO,OoO case, would discuss, like Mr..
Watson, the law in the case. When asked
this morning to which portion of the suit
he would address himself, Mr.. Rosenthal
replied that he would discuss facts.
IT'S ~facts-facts.' said he, that win
lawsuits"
ROsenthaI on Rebates.
The portion of the evidence to which the
Chicagoan will confine himself will be q
resume of the alleged railway rate dis
ordinations, a subject with which he is
probably as familiar as any attorney in the
country. 1t is a contention OF Mr.. Rosen-
thai that the Standard never enjoyed any
especial favoritism in the matter Of rail-
way rates from Whiting. Ind. where the
Standards great refinery is located, that
any other shipper could not nave secured
for the mere asking. Attorney Kellogg,
for the government, included In his side
of the case several hundred thousand words
taken from the record OF the Chicago case.
which he hoped would assist In supporting
his contention of rate determinations. The
reversal of that case leaves this evidence
OF no especial moment, but notwithstand-
ing it is to this phase Of the governments
claims that MIR. Rosenthal will devote the
greater portion of his time.
Contention OF Mr. Watson.
Lawyer Watson represented the govern.
ment in the Northern Securities case,
and is credited with having won that suit
for the government. In his Interpretation
Of the decision in that now o~ft-quoted prece-
dent in federal law, Mr.. Watson insisted
that in the present case and that suit
two separate and distinct principles Of
law were hNolNeu' anu thdt uhoer no
stretch Of the imagination could they be
deemed identical. The crux IF his argu-
ment was that the defendants could not
be held for their conduct OF years past,
and that the only point the court could
consider was whether 1t was acting in
restraint Of commerce, engaging in unfair
competition or doing any of the many other
divers things alleged on the 18th day of
November, 1906. the day the petition in the
present case was filed.