The Washington herald., 1911-01-14
STANDARD OIL HIT Il
HARD BY KELLOGG
Co.ti..ea frsn Pase one.

| alleged to have made an1davits denyms
any combination or afhliation with other
companies. Mr.. Kellogg said that this
was at time when the companies were
combined in the trust Of 1893. The charge
aroused the interest Of the members OF
the court. and Justice Holmes suggested
that under the peculiar conditions of the
trust Of 1893. the amdavt of Mr.. Rookie
feller may have been literally true
Calls Affidavit Untrue.
II think not" quickly replied Mr.. KEEL
losg. with great emphasis. II believe that
even shaving to the wind as close a. you
can and giving him the benefit OF every
doubt. Mr.. Rockefeller's afYidavit was un-
| true. I know this: either ne testified
falsely then, or he testified falsely in this
| CASE
did Mr.. Rockefeller try to explain his
andavit when it was brought to his at
tention?' asked Justice Lurton.
NO" sharply replied Mr.. Kellogg. "he
couldn't explain IT."
The governments attorney then dis
cussed the acquisition of competing
| plants. IIe referred to Mr.. Milburn s
statement Of Thursday that the Stand
ard Oil Company has purchased only
few unimportant plants. thereby con-
ferring a favor on the men who sold
them. because they were no longe: profit
able. Mr.. Kellogg said, in reply, that
the record showed the purchase of 9S
independent concerns, Of which seventy
five have been dismantled. He declared
| that 1t was useless for Mr.. Miiburn to
contend that no important independent
re efineries had been dismantled.
He cited the case Of the Manhattan Oil
Company, Of Ohio. which the STANDARD
had purchased for approximately $780,
900, and the plant was dismantled. He
referred to the purchase Of the new re-
finery built by the Cudahys in Indiana.
bought up and d!smantled.
Common In England.
When Mr.. Kellogg commenced to de-
| scribe the formation Of the Ohio trust of
1879, which the Supreme Court Of Ohio
dissolved. Justice Holmes offered the
suggestion that the Ohio trust was not
new and novel. but that it was form
Of trust that had been common in Eng
land. Mr.. Kellogg replied: Yes: and
1t has been common since. Its bylaws
and certificates were adopted almost YER
batim by the whisky trust, which was
held by the courts to be unlawful. as
tending to monopoly"
He enumerated the lead trust and
other combinations that had copied the
form of the Standard Oil trust of 1879.
and declared that in every instance
where these trusts had been attacked in
the courts Of the States as monopolistic
and unlawful the court had dissolved
| them.
Commenting upon the suggestion of
counsel for the Standard Oil Company
that its growth had been natural and Or
derly and businesslike, Mr.. Kellogg de-
clared that no company could possibly
spring suddenly into q control Of 80 per
cent Of the business OF the country,
where it had previously controlled but 10
per cent. as the result Of orderly business
development John ID. Archbold had tes-
titled in 1888, he said. that up to that time
the Standard Oil Company had bought up
and dismantled about fifty plants. This
testimony was given to q committee OF
Congress. The record was not complete
in this case, because Of the difficulty the
government had experienced in getting
Information.
Railroads n Instruments.
He reviewed the control Of pipe lines
and the monopolization OF pipe line IA
cilities across New Jersey. He charged
that the railroads had been the instru-
ments Of tEe Staodard Oil in wiping out
pipe line competition.
On the point of enormous profits, Mr..
Kellogg showed that during the panic
between 1893 and 1897. when most COM
mercial enterprises were tottering. the
Standard increased its annual profits
steadily from approximately $1a0oo.0oo in
1893 to A7.000.0O0 in 1887. On a total in
vestment Of $ss.ooo.Ooo the company since
1892 had paid $55S. 900 in dividends and
had So61 00 no surplus