Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1910-03-17
WICKERSHA|N
H[TSSTANDARD
IN ARGUMENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL CLOSING
GOVERNMENTS CASE FOR DIS
SOLUTION or COMBINE, RE-
VIEWS LLEGAa- METHODS.

Washington, D. G., March To- The
closing arguments in the contest over
the dissolution OF the Standard Oil
Co. are being made this afternoon IN
the supreme court OF the United
States. D. T. Watson Of Pittsburg and
John e. johnson Of Philadelphia ar
gued for the Standard Oil and AttOr-
ney General Wickersham for the gov
Srnment.
In his closing argument Attorney
General Wickersham, reviewing the
business methods of the Standard Oil,
said:
"It not only required rebates on Its
own shipments, but it levied tribute
on the shipments Of competitors. What
wonder they grew, what wonder they
became rich. They grew richer and
richer until 1t became national scan
dal, until the courts and the legisla-
lures were appealed to. Then, and only
then did they consent that the rail-
roads might carry other peoples busl-
ness on the same terms as their own.
Holding up the Standard Oil Co. as
danger to the country and its organ
ization as commercial precedent that
must be eradicated from the business
world, Frank B. Kellogg yesterday ar
raigned the corporation before the SUI
preme court Of the United States with
all the power of his eloquence. It was
the governments turn to bd heard IN
the argument over the dissolution OF
the Standard Oil as decreed by the cir
cult court Of the United States for the
eastern district OF Missouri. Except for
about twenty minutes that John G.
Milburn consumed at the beginning OF
the sitting in conclusion OF his opening
address, and about an equal length OF
time occupied by D. T. Watson at the
close of the day, both in the defense OF
the Standard Oil, all the time was
taken up by Kellogg.
His object was to give the history OF
the Standard Oil and it's activities,
which he denom1nated as monopoEstic,
but frequently he was led off into the
law of the case. He seemed inclined TO
leave many Of the points for the de-
cision Of Attorney General Wicker
sham, who is to close the case for the
government today. Particularly was
Ehis true as to the point OF the COM
mon ownership Of Standard Oil prop
erty. urged by the defense to have ex-
fsted both before and after the organ
lzation Of the alleged Illegal combina-
tion in 1899.
Time after time the court manifested
Its keen interest In the case by sub
jecting the counsel before 1t to a series
Of queries. They we're particularly an
xious to know about the common
ownership claimed by the STANDARD
Oil counsel, and to get various inter-
pretations Of the meaning which
should be given to monopoly. as used
In the Sherman antitrust act.
The day brought out a sharp conflict
Of purposes by the government and
STANDARD OIL Kellogg, on behalf of the
government, dwe1t upon the activities
Of the corporation with a view of at
tempting to prove an intent to monop-
plize. in addition to the reorganization
Of 1899.
On the other hand the Standard Oil
counsel contended that such matters
were not before the court for review.
The only question, they claimed, was
whether the alleged illegal combining
of 1899 was violation of the law as
held by the lower court. This they
based on the fact that the government
did not appeal from the decision Of the
lower court.