The Salt Lake herald-Republican. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1909-1918, 1910-03-16

He gave a history of the Standard OIL
and its activities, with frequent COM
ments on the law of the case. He seemed
inclined to leave many of the legal pOin S
for discussion by Attorney General Wick
ersham, who is to close the case for the
government tomorrow. Particularly was
this true Of the principle of common
ownership of Standard Oil property urged
by the defense to have existed both be-
fore and after the organization of the al
legged illegal combination in 1899.
Time after time the court manifested
its keen interest in the case by subject
ing counsel to a series of queries. They
were anxious to know about the COM
mon ownership claimed by the Standard
Oil counsel, and to get the various in
terpretations of the meaning that should
be given the word, monopoly" as used
in the Sherman antitrust act.
Question of Monopoly.
The day brought out a sharp conflict
of purposes between the government and
Standard Oil. Mr.. Kellogg, on behalf of
the government dwelt upon the activities
of the corporation to prove an intent to
mOnopOlize On the other hand the Stan
dard Oil counsel cOntended that such mat
ters were not before the court for re-
view.
Mr.. Kellogg charged that the Standard
OIL since its pipe lines had been made
common carriers, had established sta
tons at outlandish places, where nobody
V
Their rates were prohibitive, counsel
said, and that was the reason applica-
tons to use the pipe lines had not been
made by Independents.
Railroad rates, as means OF unfair
competition. were next considered. He
spoke of the number of Standard Oil Of
ficials in many railroads.
From the railroad question he returned
TO what he called the unfair methods of
competition As an example, he told of
the Standard selling oil at a loss in Los
Angeles, where there was competition,
and at profit in Portland and Seattle,
where there was no competition.
They may SAY that is only competition,
but we say it is competition that is dan
gerous in the hands of a corporation
spreading all over this country
Bogus independent Companies.
Alleged bogus Independent companies
organized by the Standard were likewise
ciassed as dangerous to competition.
Mr.. Kellogg then turned to a discus
sion of the purely legal phases of the
controversy. He argued that the North
ern Securities decision applied squarely to
the case.
In touching on the claim of common
ownership he said that at times, when
it was convenient. the defendants dwelt
upon corporate entity, but in the present
instance they We're anxious to go beyond
the corporation TO the individual. He
argued that the action of the corporation
was before the court.
Justice White and Justice Lurton ques-
toned him on how he interpreted the
two sections of the Sherman antitrust
law in question. He answered that much
depended on the degree of control pos
sessed in each case by the corporations.
The twenty minutes occupied by D. T.
Watson for the company We're devoted to
the argument that the only thing the
circuit court below held to be in viola
ton of the Sherman antitrust law was
the combination of 1899. He maintained
no other point was before the supreme
court, and, as he described it, "the
things Mr.. Kellogg has spent three
fourths of his time talking about have
nothing to do with the issues
The plan tonight is for Mr.. Watson to
continue his address when court meets
at noon tomorrow. He is to be followed
by MIR. Wickersham for the government
while John c. Johnson is to close at the
end Of the day for the corporation.