The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1909-04-10

/ Prosecutor kellogg that the men form
{ ing the Standard were liable and guilty
as alleged, under the federal common
law. There . not today and never
was a crime possible under the federal
common law" declared Mr.. Watson.
Nor s. there in all this great mass of
testimony q single sentence of evidence
10 prove that the defendants were
guilty of a violation of any provisions
of the Sherman act on Nov - 1906. and
that. I contend. is the only proposition
before the honorable court for review"
Facts Win lawsuits"
1Ioritz RosenthaI who has recovered
from his temporary indisposition, will
take up the argument Of the defense,
following LAWYER Watson.
It's facts-facts." said ct win
lawsuits
The proportion of the evidence to
which the Chieagoan will confine him
self win be q resume of the alleged rail-
way rate Determinations. a subject
with which he is probably as familiar
as any attorne-- in the country. II is
a contention Of Mr.. Rosenthal that the
Standard never enjoyed any especial
favOTitism in the matter Of railway
rates from Whiting, Ind. where the
Standards great refinery is located
than any other shipper could not have
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 evil
dence of no especial moment. but not
withstanding. il is 10 this phase of the
governments claims that Mr.. Rosenthal
Will devote the greater portion of his
time.
Rights of the Citizen.
Mr. Watson defined the rights of the
citizen, and COntended that what one
man could do legally, any number could
do. He insisted that the evidence shows
only that the defendants had enlarged
through better business methods. but
that of restraint OF trade there was not
a sCintilla of proof.
Speaking Of the increase of Standards
assets. he pointed to the court the Won
derfuI natural increase in the consump-
ton Of petroleum products. emphasiz-
ing the 235 by-products developed by
the Standard. which afforded he said
half of the profits.
Taking into consideration its i'm
mense exporting business, bringing to
this country millions Of dollars annual
ly." continued the lawyer. lit is not at
ali strange that these defendants have
built up gigantic enterprise. Instead
of restraining, these defendants have
really constructed the oil business. They
have made petroleum products more
useful to the citizens of the world"
Rosentha's Argument.
Mr.. Essential then began his arsu-
ment, taking up first the alleged rail-
way determinations in favor of the
Standard Oil
I maintain that i'm all this great rec
ord there is no proof that these defend
ants ever received discriminatory rail
way rates-secTet OF otherwise-over
their competitors was the opening
challenge Of Mr.. RGSenthaI
Mr.. Rosenthal denied that the Stand
ara had ever received a railway conces-
sion or rebate not enjoyed by COMPETE
tors, and that not since the passage Of
the El1ins act i'm 1855 had the defend
ants received railway concessions Of
any character.
Mr.. Rosenthal declared that the So