Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-03-11
Filed by Eastern Stand
ard Oil Attorneys.
Supplementary Line Of De-
fence Of Big Monopoly.
SAYS Profits Are Not Unreasonable
...ResuIt Of Modern Methods.

Washington, March 10-Although a
brief "on the part of the appellants"
was already on file in the supreme
court of the United States, a second
group Of legal talent of the Standard
Oil today presented to the court an in
dependent defence of that organiza-
ton.
Todays defenders are three promi-
nent Eastern attorneys, John G.. john
son Of Philadelphia and John G.. Mil
burn and Frank l.. Crawford, of New
York. The first defence were prepared
Z nv Pitteburg counsel, D. r. Watson,
! John NJ. Freeman and Ernest Irwin.
Il on Monday the court will hear oral
arguments on the decree of the circuit
I. lcourt of the United States for the
4. eastern district OF Missouri, dissolving
III the Standard oil co. of New Jersey,
III The Eastern counsel went more full
" into the facts" in the controversy
than the Pittsburg attorneys. Particu-
lar stress is laid Oh the contention in
the brief that the record shows no UNI
reasonable advance in the average
price OF the Standard Oil.
at appears in fact that there was no
, increase III INC prizes, SOY 'ouiloci'
what the governments position
amounts To is that the actual prices for
refined oil should have stood still,
Z while all other prices were rising, in
scluding the prices of all commodities
/ used in the manufacturing of Gil and
chiefly the price of labor. But suppose
Z Il were otherwise; there is no principle
of law or of political economy which
requires manufacturer to give away
4 a profit which he can make by "conom-
les in manufacture"
The governments method of estimat-
ing the profits the Standard Oil has
been making is denounced in the brief
as ''unsound in law and as contrary
10 business principles and the Facts
of human experience" The average
rate of profit of standard on from
1900 to 1906 which was declared to be
less than 25 per cent, is but reason
able one, counsel affirm.
This is the explanation given of what
is designated as 1.-THE remarkable success
of the Standard Oil business"
"The success of the Standard Oil bust
ness. broadly considered" the brief con
times. lis due to extraordinary foresight,
energy and boldness and to Il policy OF
investment on an immense scale displayed
and carried out in every branch OF Tn"
petroleum industry This industry may
be analyzed under four heads
"l--Assuring constant and adequate
supply of crude oil.
.'2-Getting the crude oil to the reiin-
cries.
"3-MaintaininE extensive, up to date.
well situated refineries and employing the
latest and most economical refining meth
: DDS.
"4-Developing and extending markets.
domestic and foreign, by improved mar
keting methods"
The charge that the Standard Oil Cos,
through their control by pipe lines, have
monopolzed the purchase and transporta-
ton Of crude oil. is declared In the BRIEF
TO be "entirely unsupported by the rec
erd"
Much reliance is placed in the brief on
the4decision of the supreme court IN the
famous unsuccessful attempt of the gov
eminent to dissolve the American Sugar
Refining Co., known as the KNIGHT case
It is urged that 1.-The business OF the
Standard Oil organization is the business
Of manufacturing out of crude petroleum
by various processes n great variety OF
products" a similar defence being mace
in the Knight case.