New-York tribune., 1910-03-09
SAYS IT OBEYS L1W,
Methods Of Building Up Its
Business Defended.

Washington March S.-The Standard oil
Company TO-DAY fled in The Supreme Court
Of the United States its brief in opposition
TO the attempt of the government TO dis
solve il as violating the Sherman anti
trust law Tire brief is the work OF j. f
Watson. John N freeman and Ernest c
Irwin The keynote of The defence is "the
preservation of the rights of individual citl-
zens of the United states"
It is denied that the seven individual dc
fendants-John d. Rockefeller William
Rockefeller. John d. ArchboId. Oliver II
Payne. Henry NJ Flagler, Charles u. Pratt
and Henry II. Rogers-conbined and con
spired to restrain interstate trade in oil
and 10 gain a monopoly of il
The brief complains that the decree OF
the Circuit Court o. the United states for
the Eastern District of Missouri is unjust
to the men who were a lawful group. law
fully doing business and who, after what
is described as mere conveyance and sole
~ by reason thereof. became group OF
lawless conspirators.' as it is charged
The brief continues
The Standard Oil business. as il existed
IN l.tS and still exists was the natural de
veiopment and Outgrowth Of the business
begun IN 1862 and steadily pursued by the
=.
ergN with infinite Sl&ill, with abundant cap
ltal and the steady reinNestment of early
proiltS. these men and their associates Gre
ated out OF an entirely new, unique and
unprecedented production of crude oil 4
new. universally used and cheapest llli-
minant the world has known By creative
SIKH they secured from refuse oil yalua-
pie hN-products They invented the huge
reservoirs for storing Oil-the combined
pipe line system which gathers up and car
ries the natural produCtS--the tank cars
created the export trade in oil transport
ing II IN ships Of their OWL construction
ana selling ii in Asia. India, China. Japan
RuSSia and all Europe They devised the
tracing StatcnS-the tank delivery wagons
and used every means 10 cheapen t!lf
product and the quality. From 1862 to 1906
The work went on They took the risk ot
the failure in production, OF destruction by
fire and tempest. besides all the ordinary
with competent skill and sufficient funds
The unexpected enormous increase in pro-
duction greatly increased their business and
added TO It's importance and profit Their
methods of holding their joint properties
and the management of them were die
tated by economic reasons. They used the
best and cheapest methods in the holding
Of titles and in the transportation. produc-
tion. refining and sale of Oil, and they
sought TO and did always produce the best
and cheapest product. They competed with
the same energy and skill they built up.
They succeeded. as If one had developed
unexpectedly gold or diamond mine, and
thcirs.
Their business thus created was law
ful one. and the owners thereof were and
are lawfully entitled to continue the same.
and # in 1885, when the petition was filed,
they were not restricting interstate trade
or Icy unlawful means seeking monopoly
(Which ii was moo. the court should not
have interfeTed with It.
Point after poin' is stated by counsel in
an endeavor to prove that the seven indi-
vidual defendants did nothing more in
1899 than to change their method Of bust
ness. They say:
Seven men controlling for. say. five
thousand people seventy parcels of prop
prise, and for which the five thousand
hold trust certificates Of triictecs. in 1899
determine that thereafter the five thou
Sand shall hold stock certificates of tho
same properties in the same proportions
and with the same power and manage
mont. Neither the Eve thousand owners
nor the seven managers gained any new
power or property or changed their status
or SmOthered competition by the change.
but they did gain they think. an easier
and more economic method of holding and
managing the Joint properties. They did
not intend 70, nor did they, manage the
aged thom before, and they had no idea OF
restricting competition between thoiT
Jointly held properties, because there was
none To restrict.
sCpe OF the companies in the organization
uf 1899 were ''potentialiy and naturally
competitive" and that tlictr competition
was prevented bytthis organization of 1898
is attacked.
we submit. says The brief that the
iGoa of competition between properties all
owned by the Same persons is a novelty.
Tho idea that properties themselves com
pete. aud that if one man owns t,yo or
moro he must compete with himself Is
startling. Competition between joint own
ers is also novel"
Counsel contend that competition il the
striving of two or more persons or corpora
tlons for trade. The ownership Of proper
tics, it is asserted, is wholly undo. the laws
Of tho state, and Congress cannot and does
not pretend to regulate their acquisition
i is urged that this rulc Of the Circuit
Court would broaden the sherman act Sc
that Il federal law would regulate land
titles in the state
The objections 10 the decree @rc summed
MP in tho statements that ii is too general,
too vague. TOO indefinite, too broad 1T
denies to each individual the right of hold
ing his property as he chooses" counsel
Gay. either by legal or by equitable title"
DOUBT BOND ISSUE.