Omaha daily bee., 1909-04-11
OIL CASE RECORD BREAKER
Transcript Of Evidence Contains
Eleven Million Words.
TRIAL WILL COST FIVE MILLION
Government Attorney Kellogg he
gins ClosinE Argument After
Five solid Days of TaIk
10 Court.

argument OF rive days, one OF the longest
ever granted by a federal court in this
country, special United States Attorney
General Frank B. Kellogg this morning
commenced his closing address TO the court
in behalf OF the government in the ~lstter's
suit to have the Standard OIL company Of
New Jersey dissolved as a violator of the
Sherman antitrust act.
The case has a record for bigness, the
evidence being larger by half than that
ever before taken in a single case, the
record containing in all 100000 words.
Not alone does 1t concern one of the
largest corporations in the United States,
but its trial had employed the attention
of q score or more of the most prominent
corporation attorneys for almost two years,
also a record. The case has also cost into
the millions, and 1t is estimated that by
the time the court of last resort will have
passed upon the issue that the trial will
represent an expenditure OF close to
100000.
Mr.. Kellogg this morning. after paying
his respects to the defense, after the
fashion OF lawyers, commenced his argu-
ment by discussing the contention OF
Lawyer David T.. Watson Of Pittsburg
anent the Northern Securities decision. Mr..
Watson, who argued that the case for the
government, in the present suit. insisted
that the conditions between the defendant
and the facts of the Securities case we're
not analogous and, therefore, not applica-
BILE as a controlling authority.
Original Companies Competitive.
Mr.. Kellogg argued that the twenty com
panies signing the original Standard trust
agreement were just as competitive, II any
thing, more so, than the railways sub
scribing TO the agreement In the Northern
Securities case.
The government attorney carefully re-
viewed the facts as well as the law, and
claimed that the two cases were Identical
and that by no stretch of the Imagination
or sophistry could Mr.. Watson's argument
be legally or technically logical.
After passing that point, Mr.. Kellogg
took up the points raised by John @. Mil
burn Of New York. who narrated the facts
Of the case from the defendants view
point; John G.. johnson, who discussed GER
tain phases of the law and, lastly, NORTH
Rosenthal of Chicago. who confined his
address to a discussion of the alleged I'M
fair competition and discriminatory rail-
way rates.
Mr.. Kellogg also took sharp issue with
the defendants maps, showing that the
price Of crude and refined oil had fol-
lowed the general increases and declines
Of prices of household commodities, even
to being lower as a rule. The federal at
torney insisted that the price of both
crude and refined oil had been higher than
the proportionate increase OF general sup.
plies, offering a new set Of tables, prepared
by DR.. A. Dana Durand of the United
States bureau Of corporations in support
Of his contention.
RosenthaI Fridays Feature.
The feature of yesterdays hearing was
the argument of Lawyer Moritz Rosenthal
Of Chicago, who confined his address to a
compilation of fact upon fact. More than
a score of women were in the court room
today.
After hearing the arguments of the
lawyers, the court will take the case under
a~dvisement, but 1t is not expected in view
Of the size of the case and the evidence
to consider, that the opinion will be handed
down before fall.
Moritz Rosenthal followed Mr.. Watson
for the defense.
Il maintain that in all this great record
there Is no proof that these defendants
ever received discriminatory railway rates
secret or otherwise, over their competi-
NOiS' was MS CldlltuBe'
After describing the conditions in rail-
way circles, prior 10 the passage Of the
Elkins act in 1888, Mr.. Rosenthal insisted
that there was no proof in the record that
the defendants had accepted any conces-
sion from any lawfully established rate.
Mr.. Rosenthal then took the alleged dis
criminatory rates and discussed them one
by one, showing that the discrimination
existed principally on paper.
The oil rates were about the same
throughout the country. Mr.. Rosenthal
said, as those upon other commodities
In taking up the alleged price-cutting,
Mr.. Rosenthal denied that the cutting had
driven any one from the oil business. There
was no evidence of that kind, and in only
two or three instances did the evidence show
that reports Of competitors shipments came
from railway employees, as charged.
Now my clients are not to be con-
demned," concluded Mr.. R~osenthal. "evep
II this method of obtaining competitive re-
ports is improper. nor are they to be con-
demned because in one or two instances
some one of our 5000 men have given a
gallon or two of oil, to find cut what our
competitors are doing
johnson Closes Argument
John G.. Johnson of Philadelphia spoke
briefly on the law points, making the con-
Guiding argument.
You may in the future get legislation"
said he, based upon the semi ocialistic
tendencies that prevail. and then we must
look to courts like this for our protection.
Heaven forbid that because of bigness or
any other cause a thing should be con-
demned. or we should reach that stage of
affairs when every mole hill is a mountain
and every bush a forest tree
The lawyer declared that monopoly really
meant illegal exclusion. a thing the stand
ard had never been guilty Of, he said.
And" he concluded, IF our congressman
do not understand what a monopoly really
is let them take a dictionary and find
out" Mr.. Johnson insisted his client had
not been guilty OF monopolization as al
legged in the complaint.