The Birmingham age-herald., 1910-03-10
Government Attorneys Say the Sherman let Must Be Re-
 p5aIed or Enforced
OIL COMPANY DECLARED
 ID BE GREAT MONOPOLY
Argument Presented by Standard oil Attorneys That sherman Law Pre- vents Forming Partnerships
 Is Called Fa1Iacious.

Washington, March 9.-"Either the Sherman act should be repealed or 1t the people respect it.
 With this declaration of it's guiding principle. tue department of justice to- day filed with the supreme court of the United States thousand-page brief in support of it's petition that standard oii' be dissolved as in violation of the sherman antitrust law. The brief will be the foundation of the governments oral argument at the hearing of the case by the supreme court next Monday. It bears the names of Attorney General Charles B. Morrison and cordenio A. Severance. as special assistants
 One of the two thick volumes Of the brief is devoted to an analys.s of testi- mony taken in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Missouri which decreed that Standard On' be dissolved It represents years of government investigation of the oil busi- ness.
 The government declares that this shows the rebates and discriminatory rates received by the Standard Oil cor poration, not only during it's formative period but during the last 10 years whereby the Standard was enabled to bring large part of the concerns into the combination and to crush, put and eliminate from the field of competition the principal part of the balance" Governments Claim.
 It is claimed by the government that it shows "a system of lowering the aff-es, where competitors are doing business. be- low the cost of the product while keep ing up or raising the prices in other parts of the country until the competi- tor is rather eliminated or his business brought within compass that the Standard oil company can control it: of obtaining secret information as to com petitive business largely through bribing railway employees, and using that secret information to procure countermanding of orders of independents and to facilitate their system of price-cutting and oppres- sion, of the use of So-called bogus in- dependent companies-whose operations are predatory and oppressive, principally used to drive our competitors, and vari- ous other means.
 We do not wish to be understood as discouraging enterprise says the gov- ernment, 'or as taking position against legitimate competition, but if the Sher- man act means anything in this country. 1t means a monopoly acquired by such methods of competition as this Unless 1t is enforced the small corpora ton or individual who wishes to engage in busi- ness will have absolutely no opportunity at all
 Tn many districts the Standard Oil company has an abs o1ute monopoly We mean by absolute monopoly that in those districts it does all of the business and has eliminated every competitor Prac- tcally this is the case throughout tne Rocky Mountain country and most of the Pacific coast states. The percentage of Independent business throughout the entire southern states is very small"
 It Is uiged that if fhe intent Is clear to monopolize any part of the commerce of the United States. the scheme is voic in whatever form the action is taken.
 old Argument Used.
 "The oft-repeated argument that this construction of the law prevents the for nation of partnerships and the legitimate consolidation of business enterprises" say the government. .'is fallacious, for the reason that such construction has no application where an enterprise is formed with the honest and legitimate intent to pursue Il lawful business and not go be- yCnd the bOundS or legitimate comblna- ton direcetly or substantially suppress competition. But whenever that acquisi- ton is d mere cloak to cover the inten- ton of monopolznG commerce or for tho purpose of using 1t as a weapon to strike down competition, 1t Is Illegal. It fol- lows from this that the acquisition of tho same property might, under some circum- stances. be legal, while under other cir cunstances 1t would be illegal"
 The brief replies to the argument of the Standard oil company that the cor poratious which entered into the organi- zation in 1899 were not at that time com- peting with each other.
 "If they were not competlng. says the government "it was because of an un- lawful combination in the formation of the trust, or during the liquidation pe- riod, because of the conspiracy of the in- cividua stockholders. We have seen this trust was void. Certainly the conspiracy between the stockholders of these subsid- lary corporations was directly inhibited by the sherman act
 Testimony Of Rockefeller.
 The testimony of John D. Rockefeller. it is claimed by the government, was to the effect that after the trust dissolution was ordered in 1892. each of the corpora- tions was controlled by it's owr stockhold- CTS. fengaged in it's own branch of, the business of purchasing. refining, trans- porting and selling oil. and that they wers each competing with the other.
 Even assuming" the government says, that there was a purchase of property previous to 1899, it is maintained that 1t is well settled law that where property is acquired for the purpose of suppressing competition, the acquisition Is void.'
 In support of this statement, the gov ernment quotes at length from an opinion rel dc red by President Taft then judge.,
 
 Two Pitchers Report.
 Hot Springs, Ark, March 9.-Pitchers