The Washington times., 1910-03-13

present time. In this period. holding
corporation the Standard Oh Company
of New Jersey, has controlled the prfn-
clpal corporations and, limited partner
ships aRdc7cO-3artner5hips. engaged in
the business by stock ownership agree
mentS in restraint OF trade and other
wise
1t is maintained by the Government
that through this organization interstate
trade in oil and its products has been
controlled and mOnOpOliZed.
Lower Courts Edict.
The court below, in an opinion by
Judge Sanborn, found that the seven
individual defendants, and the defend
ant corporations had entered into and
are now operating a combination and
conspiracy in restraint of trade in vio-
!ation Of Section l OF the Sherman law
and had combined and conspired to
monopoliSe the commerce in oil and
its products and had secured an unlaW-
full monopoly thereof The court en-
Joined the Standard Oil Company from
voting the stocks or exercising any con-
troll over the subsidiary corporations
and enjoined the subsidiary corpora
tion from paving any dividends TO the
STANDARD Oil Company or permitting
that company to exercise any control
over them by virtue OF stock ownership
or power acquired by means of com
bination- II enioined the Standard Oil
Company and the thirty-seven princi-
pal subsidiary corporations from en-
gsS1nE IN or continuing in interstate
commerce during the continuance OF the
Illegal combination.
A Main Issue.
One Of the principal issues in the case
seems likely TO be the charge made BY
the Government that the Standard Oil
Company is a monopoly One Of the
grounds upon which this claim is based
Is the apparently large aggregate profit
made by the company. To understand
the opposing arguments on this point,
II is necessary to consider the methods
of estimating profits employed by the
Government and by the Standard. These
methods are set forth at length in the
opposing briefs which have been filed.
The Governments brief assumes that
all profits whatsoever earned through
a period of years. whether they have
been paid out as dividends. or been re-
Invested as p surplus are 10 be COnsid-
cred with reference to the original in
VeStment however. small. Thus. II is
asserted that all the money capital that
was ever invested in the Standard com
panieS was about $50 O00. 600. The Gov
tIUIlell > DTleT sums up all Inc 0lNi-
dends that have been paid since 1882 or
lSs3 adds 10 them the total surplus.
and claims that the aggregate repre-
sents the profits that have been earned
on S69,0O0000
Standards Defense
The defendants ir their brief say this
ignores the familiar fact that a mans
annual earnings increase in proportion
to his savings; that the rate OF earn
ha Hy~
according 10 the amount of net assets.
taking into account both the original
capital and the invested surplus. Upon
this method the BRIEF sets forth that
organization for seven wears, from 1900
TO 1906, were less than . per cent, even
Including tneir profits from other
sources than the oil business
Another point strongly argued in the
Standards s brief is that the aggregate
OF profits proves nothing IN regard 70
monopoly. This point Is illustrated in
the discussion with reference 70 profits
Of certain OF the subsidiary companies.
the aggregate Of which seems large.
and especially so when referred 10 an
original small investment made many
years ago.
The defendants brief. however. points
out that these companies have done a
very extensive business, involving tho
manufacture OF a great quantity Of oil
and very extensive marketing business
y
EiOu; so that the aggregate Of profits is
due 10 the great extent OF the business
and not to any unusual or unrea sOnabIe
rate OF profits on the individual trans
actions.
other points made In the defendants
brief are that the people u1CSt inter
esled IL the controversy have made no
complaint OF the Standard: no producer
Of oil has testifi'd against the Standard.
but on the contrary a large number Of
them testified most enthusiastically In
favor OF the Standards treatment OF
the producer. and especially Of its pay
ing the highest possible prices compau-
BILE with conditions: that no consumers
have complained Of high prices. that
Crly one or two re1ners made any COM
plant: that nearly all the testimony
upon which the Government relies 10
show unfair dealings on the part Of the
Standard was given either by discharged
employees or by competitors in the mar
keting OF oil
Charges Explained.
The testimony OF these Witnesses is
confined TO small number OF places,
being. according TO defendants brief,