The San Francisco call., 1909-04-09
OIL TRUST LAWYER
DEFENDS COMBINE
David T. Watson, Who Prose-
cuted Northern Securities Co.,
Assists Standard Oil

ST. LOUIS, April S.-The temporary
a day lawyer, Moritz Rosenthal of
Chicago, interfered slightly with the
progress of the defense this after
noon in the presentation of its reply
TO the governments suit TO dissolve
the Standard oil company of New Jer-
sey for alleged violations OF the Sher-
man act.
John ]. Milburn of New York, the
Standards chief counsel, completed his
opening argument and Rosenthal was
to have followed with an address. leav-
ing David T. Watson of Pittsburg to
argue the law points. Rosenthal will
make his argument tomorrow at the
conclusion of Watson's address.
PLEADS RIGHT TO COMBINE
Watson represented the government
in the Northern Securities case, and
is credited with having won that suit
for the government He insisted that
in the present case and in the North
ern Securities principles of law were
involved, and that under no stretch of
the ina gination could they be deemed
identical.
Watson said the defendants could
not be held for their conduct of years
past and that the only point the court
could consider was whether the Stand
ard was acting in restraint Of COM
merce, engaging in unfair competition
or doing any of the many other divers
things alleged November Is, 1906, the
day the petition in the present case
was filed.
Watson insisted that Rockefeller
and his associates had the legal right
as citizens to combine.
GOVERNMENT FIGURES ATTACKED
Milburn devoted several hours to-
day to replying to Special Attorney
General Frank B. Kellogg's charges
that the Standard Oil had earned the
enormous profit of $700,000,000 upon a
capitalization of $s7.250,000. Milburr
denied these allegations. That the
profits exceeded the sums paid out as
dividends the attorney said was true
but such surplus had been used in the
extension of and construction of other
properties.
Another statement was that the value
of the properties owned by the Stan
dard Of New Jersey, which the gov
ernment seeks to dissolve, capitalized
at $97,250,000, was really less thar
100000, 900.
And" declared Milburn, with marked
emphasis, the governments theory FOL
estimating profits, as set forth in the
petition, is unsound in law and does
not accord with business principles oil
the facts Of human experience. It is
even difficult to discuss such a propo-
sition with patience"
PROFIT OF "a PER CENT
Even taking the value of the prop
critics Of the defendant in 1882, $55, no.
600, as stated by the government, the
attorney said, compounded at s per CEN
from 1882 to 1906, 1t grew to s35S,271,-
| 600, which was but $6,12s,5SS less thar
the actual assets OF the latter year as
shown by the accounts of the corpora
/ tion.
why" said he, IF we had never
purchased a gallon of oil, but loaned
our capital expeditiously and carefully
we could have made as much. and, re.
calling the high interest rates of thai
period, probably more.
I'VE admit our profit annually is q
per cent We do not apologize OIL
defend tive stand upon it." said Mil
burn as he took the defendants in.
vestments, calling attention to the fac
that sac. 100000 of its capitalization wa,
not in the oil business, but other en-
terprises. But $73,000,0O0 capital /,
really used in the oil business, he said