The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-03-15
Sweeping Denial of All Govern
ment's Contentious by AttOr-
ney for Defendants.
HE SAYS NO MONOPOLY AND
NO RESTRAINT OF TRADE
Intense Interest Is Aroused;
Arguments Will Last for
Two More Days.

Oll'' began today bcfore lhe supreme
court Of the United States when John
K Milburn of New York spoke for three
hours in its defense He will conclude
tomorrow The rest of tomorrow VIII
he devoted TO the reply of Frank b. kel-
logg for the government,
The hearing of the suit against the
Standard Oil attracted lawyers and
spectators from all sections of the coun'
try. Members of both houses of CON
eress forsoot their respective chambers
to listen TO the review of the decree or
the circuit court of the United States
for the eastern district of Missouri
dissolving the Standard Oil company OF
New Jersey as a conspiracy in restraint
of trade and as a monopoly IN violation
of the Sherman law.
The greater part of Mr.. Milburn g
address TO the court consisted OF n re,
view Of the growth of the Standard OH
company. He attempted to lay the
foundation for the claim that the
corporations entering into the reorganl-
cation of the Standard Oil company
Of New York in 1899 were non-competi,
tive because for many years they had
been under so-called common ownership.
Denies Any Monopoly.
He told of the tremendous size Of the
business, and explained how 1T had
grown. He said large factors in this
growth were the building of pipe lines
(which anybody had a right to build, -
the building of refineries and the exten-
sion of marketing facilities throughout
this country and the world.
corporations, he said, "that are pro-
tected and shielded by their govern
ments and compelled to combine so
that they may be powerful. We have
been able to meet them, because Of our
strength
Toward the close of the day he dis
cussed the Sherman antitrust act. He
said, inasmuch as the circuit court had
tion was a conspiracy to monopolize, and
had not considered the alleged monopo-
listic conduct. he felt an embarrass-
ment about discussing whether the com
panies violated the law.
"You discuss them In your brief. do
you notf'' queried one OF the justices.
'sOh, yes,' was the response.
After a discussion of the general
meaning of monopoly, the attorney re-
yerted TO the alleged monopolistic CON
duct Of the Standard Oil.
No Restraint of Trade.
Mr.. Milburn said he did not be-
lieve that the corporation was in re-
straint of trade. in view of the "com-
mon ownership It had never re-
strained the liberties or capital of any
one who has entered into a similar
business, he asserted.
Instead of being Il monopoly, it was
urged by Mr.. Milburn that the amount
of business Standard Oil was doing was
decreasing
Justice Harlan asked Mr. Milburn if
he would call an organization of men to
buy all the coal lands in Pennsylvania
conspiracy in restraint of trade and a
monopoly.
"The question you put is one difficult
OF solution" " responded the, counsel. He
explained to the court that he was
really getting "out of his line Of bust
ness in discussing monopolies.
think you are in your line" said
Justice White.
"Well, the Sherman law is very in
terestlng.' observed Mr.. Milburn. "Na.
poleon complained that the laws did not
lend themselves to the imagination, but
he had never read the Sherman anti
trust act
Relation to Railroads.
Finally, Mr.. Milburn took up the
charges of monopolistic conduct as al
legged to have been shown by trans;
portatlon discrimination. He declared
the idea that railroads throughout the
country would discriminate in favor of
business that affected only one half
of l per cent of the total traffic, was
proposterous. He said the government
claims of tremendous determinations in
favor of the Standard Oil refining
points and against the independent re-
hnlng points were unwarranted
No independent refner since 1887
he added, ''when the interstate com.
merce act was passed, has complained
TO the interstate commerce commission
of determinations.
Competition does not breed the viz
tues he said. ''1t is the lower ma
ture that comes uppermost. under such
conditions, you know. But are we to
be held responsible for all the acts
of our employees9o
Out of $4,000 towns in which the
Standard Oil is located, he said the
record showed complaints of unfair
competition from thirty-seven.
Has Complaint to Make.
AS an example of those who had
complained OF competition, he instanced
one ex-employee who had explained he
quit the Standard Oil because of its
bad influence on business. This man,
ne declared, took with him files of the
STANDARD Oil when he quit its service,
and these files were used by the gov
eminent IN the preparation of the case
AS to the charge that Standard Oil
men corrupted railroad officials TO OBJ
tain information as to it's competitors
business, he asserted that employees
found acting thus would be discharged
Experience had taught the Standard
OIL, he said. that it had to be more
vlrtuous than most corporations.
when the court adjourned for the
day Mr.: Milburn was declaring that
no complaints by independents had ever
been made of the Standard Oil S con.
troll of its trunk pipe lines. He told
Ine court he would conclude his re-
Anarks in about ten minutes tomorroyv
m After Mr.. kellogg's argument, ID. T,
Watson and John &. Johnson will speak
on behalf Of the Standard Oil. Aftor.
n,ey-General Wickersham on behalf Of
the government, probably will address
the court Wednesday.
Americans shouId nuroboso