Omaha daily bee., 1911-01-13
Lawyer Paints Word Picture ~
Early Struggles,
PURCHASES NOT MADE ILLEGAL
Period of Acquisition Closed il
Eighteen-seventy- Nine.
BOUGHT PLANTS IN KINDNESS
Smaller Competitors Were saved
from Losses by seIIinE oct to
Trust-"OnIy Decent
ThIns 10 DO."

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12.-Fighting for It's
life, the Standard oil company through its
attorneys today argued before the supreme
court OF the United States against the
proposed dissolution OF the Standard Oil
company lof New Jersey. For three hours.
John @. Milburn Of New York addressed
the court. Tomorrow, Frank b. Kellogg
Of Minnesota will present the governments
side OF the controversy. The arguments
will not be concluded until next Tuesday.
Mr. Milburn's task was 10 present to
the court the facts in the case. but he de-
parted from the facts now and then to
show what alleged wrongs the affirmance
OF the dissolution decree of the lower
court would incur
In his history OF conditions in the oil
business between 1850 and 1910. due he said
TO an overproduction OF refining capacity.
Mr. Mllburn introduced to the court the
character OF John d. Rockefeller.
Rockefeller Genius.
There was out there in Cleveland" said
he "a young man in the early sixties with
small amount OF money which he had
saved, who possessed the gift OF genius.
lie had the genius for business and there
Is a genius for business just as there Is
a genius for war, or painting or poetry.
That man was John d. Rockefeller. lie
saw that this over production Of refineries
was to be met by volume of business so
as to Withstand the lower profits
He then told how Rockefeller allied him
self with Andrews. practical oil refiner,
and how with the exercise OF Rockefeller s
genius for business and their consequent
good standing among flnanciers, they grew
rapidly.
,.nA.- A.. ..-4t,,,t.-1,. ,,,o., t,e
period of acquisition. which he said closed
IN 1879 the trust agreement of 1892 and the
new agreement Of ownership in 1899 Ae-
QUESTION never had been made. Mr. Nil
burn told the court, with an intent to re-
strain or to monopolise interstate trade.
Most Of the purchases were made he SAID,
before 1872
BopEkt G6hpetitors' Plants.
1--WE thought that It was only the decent
thing TO do IL man came TO u.s." said Mr..
Milburn "with a proposition to sell out To
buy his plant at lts appraised value. Often
it was practicaiiy worthless. and we could
have permitted It 70 dry rot In his hands
He denied the charges OF the govern.
ment that because the Standard OIL hac
the advantages OF alleged preferences from
railroads during the period of acquisition
that II should now be punished The con
tracts between the railroads and the com
pany we're not IN restraint Of trade. he con
tended. when Viewed In the light Of th'
days In which they were made
The trust agreement OF 1872 whereby
trustees exchanged their certificates for
the stock OF the various common owners
OF standard on companies. came In for
much attention. In connection therewitr
Mr.. liilburn maintained that the suprem,
court OF Ohio did not decide that tn,
trust was illegal, but simply required
the Standard Oh company OF Ohio TO with
draw from the trust agreement.
His extended remarks about the reorgan
iEation OF the Standard OIL Company o
New Jersey in iss9 which is the thing thai
the decree OF the lower court would undo
as a violation OF the Sherman law wa,
summarized by Justice Hughes.
Hughes SUMMARIZE Argument.
''The net result" suggested Jusuc,
Hughes, rs that the standard oil com
psny Of New Jersey after 1893 stood II
the place OF the trustees, and those who
held the certificates issued by the trustees
thereafter held the stock OF the Standard
OIL company Of New Jersey"
Precisely" said Mr. Mnburn. 1t 1,
quits simple when you understand IL. Yo,
see there was the samo body Of common
owners OF the property both before anC
after 1899
At this point he referred TO the argumen
of the Standard, upon which IL Is pinninl
its faith In the present controversy. tha
the new arrangement OF 1889 did not sup
press composition in any way, because tn
properties before 1899 were not combined
they being owned by the same persons.
One objection 10 the decree, which Mr
Ailburn voiced. was that by compelling tn
Standard OF New Jersey to give to eacl
OF It's stockholders a proportionate shar
IN each OF the corporations. whose stocl
Il hsld, the small holders Of stock woul,
be seriously embarrassed. For instance
the man who owned one share OF stock 4
the Standard OF New Jersey would ge
script Tor q cents worth OF stock In on
company and $3.50 worth In another Thi
would not be marketable. he suggested
Furthermore he made the statement tha
the decree would be ruinous to much OF tn
properties because the companies had no
Independent existence. Then as Attorne
General Wickersham scribbed down not,
Mr. Milbutn added From the point q
view Of value"
NANAnlAN EEOI OHIHAI