The San Francisco call., 1910-03-15
ARGUES Defense
OF STANDARD OIL
Milburn Addresses the Supreme
Court of United States in
Behalf OF Octopus
Members of Congress FOrsake
Chambers to Hear Review of
Circuit Court Decree

WASHINGTON, March 14.-Final
fight for the dissolution of STANDARD
Oil". began today before the supreme
court of the United States, when John
G. Mflburn of New York spoke for
three hours in it's defense. He will con-
clude tomorrow. The rest of tomorrow
will be devoted to the reply of Frank
B. Kellogg for the government.
The hearing of the suit against the
Standard oil attracted lawyers and
spectators from all sections of the
country. Members of both houses of
congress forsook their respective
chambers to listen to the review of the
decree of the circuit court of the
United States for the eastern district
of Missouri, dissolving the Standard
oil company of New Jersey as a con-
sp1racy in restraint of trade and as a
monopoly in violation of the Sherman
law.
REVIEWS OCTOPUS GROWTH
The greater part of MiIburn's ad-
dress to the court consisted of a re-
view Of the growth of the Standard oil
company. He attempted to lay the
foundation for the claim that the cor
porations entering into the reorgani-
zation of the Standard oil company of
New Jersey in 1899 were noncompeti-
tive because for many years they had
been under so called common owner
ship.
He told of the tremendous size of the
business, and explained how it had
grown. He said large factors in this
growth were the building of pipe lines.
which anybody had right to build"
the building of refneries and the ex-
fon nctn Of ,-lya% ,ils h
out this country and the world.
I'VE compete abroad with great
corporations he said. that are pro-
tected and shielded by their govern
ments and compelled to combine so
that they may be powerful. We have
been able to meet them because of our
strength"
After discussion of the general
meaning of monopoly, the attorney
reverted to the alleged monopolistic
conduct of the Standard oil.
NO RESTRAINT OF TRADE
Milburn said he did not believe that
the corporation was in restraint of
trade. in view of the common owner
ship 1t had never restrained the lib
critics or capital of any one who has
entered into it, nor any one who was
its competitor, he asserted. Instead of
being a monopoly, it was urged by
l1ldl the amount OIL business
Standard oil was doing was decreasing.
Justice Harlan asked Milburn If he
would call an organization of men to
buy all the coal lands in Pennsylvania
conspiracy in restraint of trade and
monopoly.
The question you put is one difficult
of solution" responded the counsel. He
explained to the court that he was
really getting "out of his line of busi-
ness" in. discussing monopolies.
Il think you are in your line" said
Justice White.
We'll, the Sherman law is very in
teresting,' observed Milburn. 'Napo-
leon complained that the laws did not
lend themselves to the imagination.
but he had never read the Sherman
antitrust act"
AS to the charge that Standard oil
men corrupted railroad officials to OBJ
tain information as to it's competitors
business, he asserted that employees
found acting thus would be discharged.
Experience had taught the Standard
oil, he said, that it had to be more
virtuous than most corporations