The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1909-04-09
REBATES WERE
NEVER TAKEN
BY STANDARD
Attorney Declared It Never
Recefe kpy Discrima-
tofyh
COMPANY IS NOT ON TRIit
FOR ANCIENT M|SOEnEARdR!
Watson Argued the Question Must be
Limited to What Was Done by the
Corporation on the Day the Com.
plant Was Filed.

Corporation on the Day the Com.
plant Was Filed.
st. Louis. Mo-, April 81 main
tain that in all this great record there
is no proof that these defendants ever
received discriminatory railway rates
secret or otherwise-over their
competitors" was the assertion of
NORTH Rosenthal, attorney for the
Standard Oil company, this morning
in commencing his address before the
four judges in the United States cir
cult court who are hearing the gov
ernment's dissolution suit against the
big corporation.
After discussing the conditions OBJ
tanning in railway circles prior to the
passage Of the Elkin act in 1888, At
torney Rosenthal insisted that there
was no proof In the record that the
defendants had accepted any conces-
sion from any lawfully established
railroad. The lawyer said the only
proof in the record Of the acceptance
OF railway discrimination of any kind
was the receipt showing the accept
ance of $40 by the Standard Oil
company of California from the Santa
F'e on two shipments made to Cali
fornia, where an overcharge had been
made. The early part of the morning
session was taken up by David T..
watson of Pittsburg who concluded
MS argument, commenced yesterday.
The cardinal point emphasized by
the lawyer was that in the last an
alysls 1t mattered not what the Stand
ard OIL may have done in 1882 or 1870,
the question before the court was
whether the defendant was guilty of
monopolizing, receiving railway dis
crlmlnations or restraining trade on
November Is, 1906, when the COM
plant In the case was filed.
Mr.e Watson took sharp issue with
the legal views of Government Attor-
ney Kellogg in regard to the COM
mon law.
There is no crime-there can be
no crime at common law under feder-
al jurisdiction" was what Mr.. Wat.
son offered as his basic legal propo-
sition.
Later Mr. Watson who argued the
famous Northern Securities case for
the government referred to his par
tfcipation in that trial. He said that
the Northern Securities company suit
had nothing in common with the case
at bar. The former saw two compet-
ing roads, which had been denied
specifically the right of association
attempting to effect combination
contrary to common law and Sherman
act alike. The men joining the Stand
ard Oil trust agreement of 1882, the
lawyer declared, were citizens of the
United States having the right to as
sociate under all laws IL they SO de-
sired.
Mr.. Watson insisted the contro-
versy in the case was not what the
defendants had done five or thirty
years ago, but whether they were gull
u OF attempting to restrict commerce
on November Is. 1906. as charged
in the petition filed against them on
that date.
ut mattered not" he said. whether
the defendants had prior to that date
monopolized commerce in the several
states, and even if such evidence was
in the case, a fact which is denied, 1t
could not assist the government in
this trial under a law brought to con-
troll interstate commerce. and not en-
acted to pass upon controversies be-
tween the state and the citizen him.
SELF"
1t could not be contended, was an
other declaration, that because of the
defendants great capitalization, 1t
could be deemed monopoly. Legal
ly, it mattered not whether a mans
profit was twenty per cent or seventy
per cent so long as he did not, in
earning his profits, close the avenues
of trade against his competitors.
There was. likewise. he said, no bar
to the acquisition of great wealth
under any existing law that he knew
Of.
Another point urged upon the court
was that the defendants had the right
to produce, transport. refine. market
and sell their petroleum products and
incidentally to make all the money
they could. pleasure guaranteed all
citizens under the constitution. SO
long as they made no attempt to
monopolize. Such a thing as mono-
polization was not. he added, within
the purview of the Sherman act. un-
less 1t be the unlawful exclusion of
others from the trade.
IF you get sixty per cent of any
trade you are bound. nevertheless. to
exclude some one. Such thing as
real monopoly is impossible One man
may have ninety per cent of the trade
in commodity in May, but who may
say he will hold the trade when Sep
tember and November comes?" de-
clared the Pittsburg lawyer He also
thought the government was really
bound to furnish the same proof in
the case at bar. that would be required
II an indictment for crime had been
returned.
Again and again Mr.. Watson repeat