The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1910-03-12
ANOTHER BRIEF BY
STANDARD OIL
COMP ANY
Second Group Of Attorneys De-
Tending tbs Octopus
ONLY rs PER CENT PROFIT


WASHINGTON, March although
"a brief ~on che part Of the appellants"
was already ON ale in the supreme
court of tho United States a second
group of legal talent Of the Standard
Oil has presented to the court an in-
dependent defense Of that organiza-
tion.
The defenders are three prominent
eastern attorneys, John G. Johnson OF
Philadelphia. John G. Milburn ani
Frank l.. Crawford of New York. The
first defense was prepared by Pitts.
burg counsel, d. r. Watson, John NJ.
Freeman and Ernest Irwin, On Mon
day the court will hear oral argu-
ments on the decree of the circuit
court of the United States for tha
eastern district of Missouri dissoy-
ing the Standard Oil company of New
Jersey.
The eastern counsel went more
fully into the facts" in the contro-
versy than the pittsburg attorneys.
Particular stress is laid on the claim
in the brief that the record shows
no unreasonable advance in the ay-
erage price of the Standard Oil
The governments method of esti-
mating the profits the Standard o..
has been making is denounced in the
brief as unsound in law" aud as
contrary to business principles and
the facts of human experience"
Considering says the brief only
the rate of profit which for seven
years l900-19OG, averaged less than
% per cent on the total net capital
invested year by year in the business
that rate of profit is a reasonable one
for a great manufacturing business
involving the elements of risk which
characterize the oil industry, espec-
tally where as here, a great proper.
tion of the profits is derived from
business with foreign countries out
side OF the protection OF American
laws and in competition with the
manufacturers and merchants Of the
world
THE success of the Standard Oil
business. broadly considered the
brief continues. lis due to extraordin-
airy foresight energy and boldness
and to a policy of investment on an
immense scale displayed and carried
out in every branch Of the petroleum
industry"
The charge that the Standard Oil
companies through their control OF
pipe lines have monopolzed the pur-
chase and transportation of crude oil
J is declared in the brief to be entire
/ ly unsupported by the record"
The earlier brief bore the names OF
d. T. Watson, John NJ Freeman and
| Ernest c. Irwin of Pittsburg There
! are rumors of difference of opinion
between the two groups of counsel as
to which is the main brief That
filed last is in two volumes, one ad
dressing itself to the facts and the
other to the law
The latter brief is devoted to an
attempt to prove 10 points On these
the case is submitted to the court and
they are as follows
One-The plants and properties OF
the Standard companies have always
been in a common ownership since
their acquisition or creation
Two-The Sherman act has no ap
plication TO the acquisitions by the
Standard Oil company of New Jersey
Of the stock of manufacturing anC
mining or producing corporations
Three-The contracts combination.
and conspracies of section of the ac
are contracts combinations and con
spiracies which restrict the freedom
OF the parties or strangers in IN,
conduct of their business.
Four-The acquisition Of the stool
of the subsidiary companies by tn,
Standard Oil company Of New Jersel
in 1899 was not such a combination
or conspiracy in restraint of trade
Five-Monopolizing within the sec
oud section of the act is the exclusion
of others from trade by illega
means.
Six-Tho Standard Oil company o
New Jersey was not monopoliZing O
attempting TO monopolize or combm
ing with any one else TO monOpolz
wien this proceeding was instituted
Seven-rhe ownership of the pip
line system has not been a means o
monopolizing
Eight-The decree enormously IN
cludes and operates upon several q
the appellant companies.
Nine-The sixth section of the d,
cree disbanding of corporation, is VI
warranted and impracticabe in yal
ious of its provisions
Ten-The circuit court had no iul
isdiction over the appellants
Much reliance is placed in the brie
on the decision OF the supreme couI
i'm the famous unsuccessful attemr
of the government to dissolve tn
American Sugar Refining compan.
known as the Knight case. It is url
ed that the business OF the Standar
oil organization is the business {
manufacturing out Of crude petrol
um by various processes n great va
iety of products" a similar defens
being made in the Knight case
The manufacturing and produciu
companies i'm the Standard OIL it
claimed, are clearly within the pri
ciple of the Knight case and II thel
were anything Illegal in the acqui
ition OF transportation and markl
gnp,popioc which &C. dorfad thot