The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-03-10
INDIVIDUALS MUST
RETAIN ALL RIGHTS
Government Brief in Reply to
Defense of Standard Oil Is
Really Sermon.
EVIL OF MONOPOLY is
CLEARLY POINTED OUT
Avenues of Commerce and Trade
Must BE Kept Open for
Every Man.


the Sherman act should he repealed or
it should be enforced in manner TO
make the people respect il.
With this declaration. the department
OF Justice TODAY fled with the federal
supreme court OF the United States q
petition that ''Standard OIL be dis.
solved as in violation Of the Sherman
antitrust law
The brief will bc tho foundation Of
tho government 5 oral argument at thr
hearing next Monday. II bears the
names Of Attorney General Wicker
sham aud Of Frank B Kellogg, with
Charles r. Morrison aud Cordonio A.
Severance as special assistants.
Analysis Of Evidence,
One of the two volumes Of the brief is
devoted to an analysis of the testimony
taken in The circuit court of the United
States fer the eastern district Of Mis-
souri, which decreed that STANDARD
Oil bc dissolved. - II represents years
of governmental investigation of the oil
business The government declares this
testimony shows rebates and discrimiua
torv rates were received by the Stand
ard Oil combination, not only during Its
formative period, but during the last
ten wears. whereby the Standard was
enabled 10 bring a large part of the
couccrns into thc combination and TO
crush out aud eliminate from the field
of competition the principal part OF the
balance.
II is claimed By the government that
il % Shows n system OF lowering prices
where competitors arc doing business
below The cosi OF production. while rails
ing the prices IN other parts OF the
country until tho competitor is either
eliminated or his business brought 10
such Il state that tbc Standard Oil com
panv can control it; Of obtaining secret
IS 10 competitive business.
largely through bribiDg railway en-
plovcs. and using that secret lutornla-
ton 10 procure couutcrmandln@ OF or
dcrs of independents and TO facilitate
their system of price cutting and op-
preston: OF tho usc cf so-callcd bogus
Independent companies whose opera
tious are predatory and oppressive prln,
cipalv 10 drive ont competition; and
various other means.
Constituting the Law.
eve do not wish "a be understood
rs discouragin2 enterprise. says tbo
government. "or as being against Icgit-
mate competition. but If tho Sberman
act means ANYTHING in this country u
means monopoly acquired by sUcG
methods as This. Unless IT IS .eDtorced'
the small corporation OF individual VINO
wishes to engage IN business NIL nave
aI oil
"In MANY districts the Standard on
COMPANY has an absolute monopoly VIC
me,n bv absolute monopoly that IN
those districts il does all OF the business
and has eliminated every competitor,
tins is the case throughout
the Rocky mountain country and most
of the Pacific roast states The per
.cutaee OF independent business through
out the entire southern states is very
small.
In the second volume is 4 so-called
summary of facts and brief of the
law.
Government s Attitude.
Here too. repeated statements are
made OF the attitude OF the government
toward organized business, IL IS urged
that if the intent is clear 20 mou0pQllzc
auv part OF the commerce of the United
States. the scheme is void in whatever
form the 1CtIou l. lake0.
The oft-repeatcd argument that this
OF the law prevents the
formation Of partnerships and the legit'
innate consolidation of business enter
priscs, said the government. 50 IS fal.
iacious, for such construction has. no ap
plcatiOp where an enterprise is formed
Wits the bouest and legitimate intent
TO pursue q lawful business. not 20 be.
YOU'D tue bounds Of legitimate comblua-
tlon or directly or substantially suppress
Whenever that acqulSl-
tion is a mere cloak 10 cover the mouop.
olizIng aof commerce or 10 strike down
it is illegal, 1t follows
from that that the acquisition of the
same property might. under some ciE'
be legal. while under other
it will be illegal,
Answer to Defendant.
The brief replies 10 The argument OF
tbc Standard Oil counsel, that the cor.
porattops that entered into tho orqauj-
cation 10 1899 were not al that time
with each other.
''It they were not competing saws
the government, III was because OF au
unlawful combination 10 the form of
trust. 1r during the liquidation period
because ot the conspiracy Of the iudi.
vIdual stockholders We bnve seen this
trust Was void. Certainly the conspi.
racy between the stockholders of these
corporations WAS directly iu.
hlbltcd by the Sherman act
Iobu D. Rockefeller. it is claimed by
the government. testified that after the
trust dissolution was ordered in 1892.
each of the corporations. AS controlled bv
its own stockholders. engaged in its own
branch of the business of purchasing.
refining. transporting and selling oil
and that they were each competing
with the other
Even assuming, the government saws
that there WIS n purchase of property
previous to 1899. II is maintained that
ii is well settled law. that where prop.
ertY is acquired TO suppress competition
the acquisition is void. In support of
this statement the government quotes
at length from an opinion rendered bv
Prcsideut Taft; then on the bench.