The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1910-03-09
Argument Is Made In Detail
In Showing Why Company
Should Not He Dissolved
ORIGINAL COMPANIES
WERE NOT COMPETITORS
Attorneys for Standard OIL Claim That
- Organization of Company Was
Dictated by Economic Rea-
sons Among Promoters.

, Washington, March s.--Basing its claim
mat the corporations merged with the
Standard Oil company of New Jersey in
1859 were non-competing at the time and
on the allegation that the Interpretation
given to the Sherman antitrust law by
the lower court would strike down organ
ICED business. the Standard Oil company
today iiled in the supreme court of the
United States It's brief against the dis
solution OF that organization.
This dissolution was ordered by the
rircuit court of the United States for the
Eastern district of Missouri as the result
of a petition fled by the government in
1906. Whether or not the decree of dlsso-
luton shall stand will come up Monday
for oral argument in the supreme court.
Frank 5. Kellogg is now in the city.
putting the finishing touches on the brief
of the government, while Attorney Cen
eral wickersham is understood to be pre-.
pairing an oral argument of the case. The
brief for the Standard OIL bears the names
of D. It. Watson, John M. Freeman and
Ernest c. Irwin.
fhe argument of counsel for the Stan
dard Oil in support of the contention that
The corporations whose stocks were
charged in 1899 for stock In tho Standard
Oil company of New Jersey were non
competitors is based on the assertion that
they were all owned at that time in the
same proportion and by the same people
who owned tho Standard Oil company of
New Jersey.
1t Is claimed the method of organization
in 1899 was dictated by economic reasons.
and that the business created by the indI-
sidual defendants. John d. Rockefeller,
William Rockefeller, John D. Archbold,
Oliver II. Payre, Henry Nj. F'lagier,
Charles M. Pratt and Henry NJ. Rogers,
vas a lawful one, the success of which,
It is asserted, was tie legitimate reward
of what is described as unusual risk en-
ergy, skill and plenty of the company's
capital
Points in the Brief.
The brief asserts the circuit court of
the United States for the Eastern district
of Missouri. in its adverse decree, the
defendants seek overtures held that solely
because the Individual joint owners of a
group of non-competitive properties who
were engaged for 40 years in private
trade instead of continuing to hold
through trustees controlled by these de-
PENDANTS, changed. In 1S99 as the brief
says 1.-The method OF holding their prop
critics by conveying them to the Standard
Oil company of New Jersey, such change
was violation of the Sherman anti
trust act.''
The claim that the seven individuals are
engaged in lawful business is empha-
sized.
1.-THE Standard Oil business as it ex-
sII
brief, twas the natural development and
Cutgrowth of the business begun in 1862
and steadily pursued by the Rockefellers
and others"
Then follows description of the anti
ring energy land infinite skill by which
TIE brief says this business was built up
and also recital of the well-known
steps by which 1t so expanded in to par
ticipation in a worldwide trade.
The brief claims further that the de-
PENDANTS used every means to cheaper
the product and quality. From 1862 to
1905 "a years. the work went on. "They
took the risk of the failure; they met all
emergencies with competent skill and
sufficient funds The unexpected enor
NOUS increase In productions greatly in
creased the business and added to its
Importance and profit
'"Their methods Of holding their joint
properties and the management of them
was dictated by economic reasons.
'"They used the bert and cheapest
methods in the holding of titles and
the transportation production. 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.
'sThey succeeded, as If one had devel-
'oped unexpectedly gold or diamond
mine, and abundant revenue legitimately
became theirs
only Methods Change.
Point after point is made by counsel in
m endeavor to prove that the seven IN
'dividual defendants did nothing more
IN 1899 than to change their method OF
business.
Seven men controlling for, say 5000 peo-
PIE, 70 parcels of property devoted to pri-
vate business enterprise and for which
the 6OOo hold trust certificates of trustees
in 1899, determine that thereafter 5000
shall hold stock certificates of the New
Jersey Standard Oil company for the
same properties in the same proportions
and with the same power and manage
ment
Neither the 5000 owners nor the seven
managers gained any new property or
power or changed their status. nor
smothered competition by the change,
but they did gain as they think an easier
and more economic method of holding
and managing the joint property. They
did not intend to nor did they manage the
properties after 1893 except as they man
aged them before. and they had no idea
Of restricting competition between their
Jointly held properties, because there was
none to restrict.
The position of the circuit court that
some of the companies in the organiza-
ton of 1899 were potentially and natur-
ally competitive and that their compe-
tition was prevented by this organiza-
tion of 1899 is attacked.
I'VE submit" says the brief, that the
idea of competition between properties all
/, owned by the same persons is novelty.
The idea that properties themselves COM
uete and that II one man owns two or