The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-03-11
Three Eastern Attorneys
Plead That 1t Is
Great and Good.
HAS BEEN HONEST
IN ITS DEALINGS
Second Group Of Legal Talent
Contends That Trust Has Wax
cd Great Merely by Fore
sight, Energy and Bold
ness-charge Of Monop-
-. nan;ed
DIV Denied.

washington, March 10.--Althoush y
hr,e, "on the part OF the appellants
was already on file in the supreme
court OF the United States second
| grown OF legal talent OF the standard
oil to-day presented to the court an
independent defense Of that organza-
tion.
To-day,s defenders are three promi-
nent Eastern attorneys-tohn G. john
son. OF philadelphia. John g. Milhurn
ana Frank l.. Crawford. of New York
4 on Monday the court will hear oral
argucnts on the decree OF the Circuit
| Court OF the United States for the
1 Eastern District OF Missouri. dtssolv-
1 ing the Standard Oil Company, OF New
Jersey.
Particular stress is laid by counsel
on the claim In the brief that the
4 record shows no unreasonable al q
vance in the average prices or the
4 Standard Oil.
III appears in fact. that there was
no increase in their net prices.' say
counsel what the governments po-
4 sition amounts to Is that the actual
tprices for refined oil should have
/ stood still, while all other prices were
rising, including the prices OF al COM
4 modities used in the manufacture OF
q oil. and chiefly the price OF labor.
But suppose 1t were otherwise: there
& is no principle of law or political econ
s. omy which requires a inanufactuEer TO
give away profit which he can make
:, by economies In manufacture.
Methods Unsound.f
The governments methods of estl'
: ma ting the profits the Standard OIL has
. a.. aopoypcad in the hriet
: as '.unsound In law" and as .contrars
) TO business principles and the facts ol
human experience.
j, .considering only the rate OF pro-
4 fit, which for seven years, soo- lsVp =
averaged less than 25 per cent. on TN
y Total net capital INVESTED year b. yea
.sji,n the business. that rate OF pro tit IS
: : asora bic one fora great n1anufactur
!. ING business, involving the elements
: risk which cilaractcrizes the OIL III
: dustry, especially where, as herc',H
great proporticu OF the profits Is de
! rived from business with foreign 3couh
z tries outside of the protectiiopli, =
h American laws. and in compe.'l!o'
with the manufacturers anu 'net n.y." s'''A'' -
!, OF the world :" , Z
d 1This Is the explanation given 9
what is designated as .'the seHarKap rem. F' 2, >,
le .,,ncoss s at the Standard Oil business.
g 4-"1,ba success OF the standard "
e thusiness broadly considered, u
l. :, In,ed "is due to extraordinary lore
II s,ght energy and boldness' ana 70
= ,,n1ic,, of Investment on an immens
ld eeaie displayed and carried out y
"a every branch of the petroleum inous
ofItry.'' e.,,d,rd q,
comnanies through their control Q
=. l, ,,,Nnnnn1i2euM
&c chasc and transportation of crude O.
ty ,e declared in the brief to be "entlrel
+ s,1pportcd by the records.
n Company'ss sConte nttons.
r. To.day.s brief is devoted to an at
ltcmpt to prove ten points. on ines ines
H. tbo case Is submitted to the court, an
he they are as follows !,
20 Tho plants and properties OF IN
a Standard companies nave AVA always V oee
n in a common ownership since Ii'ell ittl .. ~
=. nlisition or creation.
ie : THE sherman act has no applfci
y tion 10 the ACQUISITION by the Stant
ne ard OH Company of New Jersey
III the stocks OF manufacturing and NH
"a ling or producing corporations.
s-The contracts, combinations ar
conspiracies of section l of the a,
nre contracts. combinations and COZ
: spiracies which restrict tho trccdo
-. of the parties or strangers ~ l1A0 W
i.c w duct Of their business.
II 4. The acquisition of the stocks
TO the subsidiary companies by II
n5 standard Oil Company, OF New Jerse
me in 1899 was not such combinatle
cl- or conspiracy in restraint ofatradc
Ire s. Monopolizing within the seco1
section OF the act is the exclusion
ats others from a trade by illegal near
ter s.. The standard OH Company Of ne
IKE Jersey was not monopolizlns or q
3ut tempting to monopolize. er combinll
my With any one else to monopolize Wh
the this proceeding was Instituted.
ess y, The ownership OF the pipe-ll
system has not been means
! . : : monopoliztnE.
req S. The decree erroneously includ
~ ~. and operates upon several OF the
t.y pollant companies.
i's & 9.sThe sixth section Of the dec
~ Outstanding Of the corporations).
's'l unwarranted and d&impractlcable IN
no rIous OF It's provisions.
suh 10. The Circuit Court had no jur
ers dlction over tho appellants. s
my - - . --- ( H
o.. Gus EDUCATORS MEET