Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-03-16

the Standard Oil Co, of New Jersey
as danger to the country and its
organization as a commercial precedent
that must be eradicated from the bust
ness world Frank B. Kellogg today ar
ralgned the corporation before the SUI
preme court of the United States with
all the power Of his eloquence 1t was
the governments turn to be heard in
the argument over the dissolution of
the Standard Oil as decreed by the
circuit court of the United States for
the eastern district of Missouri.
Except about 20 minutes consumed
each by John G.. Milburn and D. r
Watson, both in defence of the Stand
ard Oil, all the time was taken up by
Mr.. Kellogg. His object was to give
history of the Standard Oil and its
activities, which he denominated as
monopolistic. but frequently he was
led off into the law phrases. The court
manifested its keen interest by subject
ing the counsel before it to a series Of
queries. They were particularly anxi-
Gus to know about the common owner
ship claimed by the Standard Oil
counsel and to get the various interpre-
tations of the meaning which should be
given to q monopoly, as used in the
Sherman antitrust act
The day brought out sharp conflict
Of purposes by the government and
the STANDARD Oil Mr.. Kellogg dwelt
upon the activities of the corporation
with view of, attempting to prove
an interest to monopolize in addition
to the organization of 1899.
on the other hand the Standard oil
counsel contended that such matters
were not before the court for review
The only question, they claimed was
whether the alleged illegal combining
of 1899 was a violation of the law as
held by the lower court This they
based on~the fact that the government
did not appeal from the decision of
the lower court The plan tonight is
for Mr.. Watson to continue his adj
dress when the court meets at noon
tomorrow He is to be followed bv
Mr. Wickersham for the Government
while John G.. Johnson is to close at
the end of the day for the CORPORATION.
Mr. Kellogg has had Immediate
charge of the suit against the Stand
ard Oil from the time the netition for
dissolution was filed by the govern
lnent in 1906 in the circuit court Of
the United States for the eastern dis
trict OF Missouri. The little court =
room again was crowded. With the
opening of the case over. the lawyers
on both sides seemed to settle down
To the contest with an added serious
ness.
After the recess. Mr.. Kellogg took up
the question of profits. He recited a Ions.
list of subsidiary corporations and tho
profits he said they had earned. The
Colonial Oil Co. he said in 1906 had earn
ed profit of .027 per cent. on its capital
stock
what" Interrupted Justice White
'---5o27? 5o2.7 on its capital stock
and AZ per cent. net on it's net assets"
Mr.. Kellogg next discussed the price
of oil as compared with other articles ana
turned to the pipe line business
Mr.. Kellogg charged that the Standear
since its pipe line had been made common
carriers, had established delivery stations
at "Outlandish places where nobody ever
had Il refinery" Their rates were pro-
hibtive, the counsel said, and that was
the reason applications to use the pipe
line had not been made by independents
Railroad rates as means of unfair COM
petition, was next considered. lie spoke
of the number of Standard Oil officials
in many railroads From the railroad
question he returned to what he called
the unfair methods of competition. As
an eXemple he told of the Standard selling
oil at Los Angeles. where there was COM
petition and at profit in Portland and
Seattle, where there was no competition
They may say that is only competition
but we say it is competition that is dan
gerous in the hand of a corporation
spreading all over this country" Bogus
Independent companies organized by the
Standard were likewise classed as dan
gerous competition.
Mr.. Kellogg then turned to a discussion
of the purely legal phases of the contro-
versy Under the common law he urged
that the comb ining of the Standard was
before 1899 He argued that the North
ern Securities case applied squareIy to the
present case.
In touching on the claim of common
ownership he said at times when it was
convenient the opposition dwelt upon cor
porate entirety but in the present in
stance they were anxious to go beyond
the corporations to the individuals. He
urged that the action of the corporations
was before the court.
Justice White and Justice Lurton ques-
toned him on how he interpreted the two
sections of the Sherman antitrust law
in question. He answered tina much de-
pended upon the degree of control pos
sessed in each case by the corporations.
Mr.. kellogg then gave way to D. I. Wat
son for the Standard Oil.
The 20 minutes occupied by Mr.. Wat
son were devoted to the argument that
the only thing the circuit court below
held to be in violation of the Sherman
antitrust law was the combination OF