Watertown leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1909-1911, 1910-03-11
FILES SECOND BRIEF IN SUPREME
COURT DECLARING COMPANY
is NOT MONOPOLY.
Latest Document Is to Prove Ten Points
in Resisting Verdict CT Missouri
Judges.
AMERICAN SUGAR CASE is CITED.

WASHINGTON. u. G., March 10
\ second brief in the Standard Oil APP
peal 10 the supreme court of the United
States was filed today by others of its
counsel. 1t is in addition TO that filed
on Tuesday ana is signed by John q.
Johnson OF Philadelphia. John c. Mil
burn and Frank l.. Crawford of New
York.
The earlier brief bore the names of
II. f. Watson. John NJ. trecmAn and
Ernest {. IRWIN of I'ittSDurg.
These separate groups OF counsel filed
separate briefs i'll the court below when
the case was tried i'll the circuit court
Tor the eastern district OF Missouri
There were some rumors today OF differ
ence of opinion between the TWO groups
OF counsel as to which is the main
brief That filed today is in TWO vol
umeS, one addressing itself TO the
FACTS" the other to the law.
To Prove Ten Points
Todays brief Is devoted to an attempt
10 prove ten points. ON these, the case
Is submitted 10 the court. and they are
as follows:
l. The plants and properties of the
Standard companies have always been i'll
4 common ownership since their acquisition
creation.
= The Sherman act has no application
to the acquisition by the Standard Oil COM
pany of New Jersey of the stock of manu-
featuring and earning or producing Corpor
ationS
s. The contracts. combinations and CON
spiracies of Section l of the act are con
tracts, combinations and conspiracies which
restrict the freedom of the parties
strangers in the conduct of their business.
t. The acquisition of the stock of the
subsidiary companies by the Standard on
company of New Jersey in 1899. was not
such combination or conspiracy in re
straint of trade.
>. Monopolizing within the second
ton of the act is the exclusion of others
from trade by Illegal means.
8. The Standard Oil company of New
Jersey was not monopolizing or attempting
to mOropolize, or combining with any one
Else to monopolize when this proceeding
instituted.
!. The ownership of the pipe line sys-
tenn has not been Il means of monopolizing.
s. The decree enormously includes and
operates upon several Of the appellant com
O. The sixth section of the decree dis
banding of the cOrporatlon) is unwarranted
and impra bic in various of its proVlS-
ions
TO- The circuit court had no jurisdiction
over the appellants.
Sugar Case Is Cited
Much reliance is placed in the brief
Oh the decision of the supreme court i'll
the famous unsuccessful attempt of the
government to dissolve the American
Sugar Refining company, known as the
knight case. 1t is urged that "the bust
ness of the Standard Oil organization is
the business Of manufacturing out of
crude petroleum by various processes Il
great variety of products" a similar de-
Tense being made in the Knight case.
The manufacturing and producing COM
panies in the Standard Oil, it is claimed.
ARE clearly within the principle of the
Knight case and if there were anything
illegal i'll the acquisition of transporta-
ton and marketing companies which
is denied. that illegality would only
Justify Il proper decree as to them"