Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1911-01-13
STANDARDS FIGHT
FOR ITS EXISTENCE
ARGUMENTS BEFORE SUPREME
COURT IN DISSOLUTION
CASES
Company Not to be Punished For
Having Been Allowed
Rebates

Washington, Jan. l2.-FigMins for
life, the Standard Oil company
through its attorneys today argued
before the supreme court against the
proposed dissolution of the Standard
oil company OF New Jersey.
For three hours John c. MilBurn
New York, addressed the court. To-
morrow Frank b. Kellogg, of Min
nesota, will present the government
side of the controversy
Mlburn's task was To present the
facts in the case but he depressed now
and then, to show what alleged
wrongs the affirmation of the dissolu-
ton decree of the lower court would
incur. In his history OF the chaotic
conditions in the oil business between
1860 and 1870. they were due. he said
To production in refining capa-
city. and here Milburn introduced L.
the court the character Of Rockefeller
There was in Cleveland" he said
"a young man in the early sixties
with d small amount Of money which
he had saved, who possessed the gift
OF genius. He had d genius for bust
ness and there is genius for bust
ness as well as a genius for war or
poetry. or painting. That man was
Rockefeller He saw that 6ver-pro-
duction in refineries must be met by
volume of business to withstand
lower profits"
lie told how Rockefeller allied him
self with Andrews, practical oil re-
finer, how the exercise of Rockefel-
ler's genius for business and his con-
sequent good standing among finan-
ciers, grew rapidly. Milburn dwelt
particularly upon the period of acaui-
sition, which he said closed i'm 1879:
the trust agreement in 1892, and a
new arrangement of ownership in
1924. Acquisitions had never been
made. Milburn told the court, with
the intent to restrain or monopolize
interstate trade. Most of the pur-
chases made. he said. were before
1899
We thought the only decent thing
To do, if man came To us" said
Milburn, with a proposition to sell
out. was To buy his plant at its APP
praised value. Often it was practi-
cally worthless. we could have per
He denied the charges of the gov
eminent that because Standard oil
had the advantage of alleged prefer
ence during the period of acquisition.
II should now be punished. Con-
tracts between the railroads and
Standard were not i'm restraint Of
trade. he contended, when viewed i'm
the light of the days i'm which they
were made
Extended remarks about the re-or-
of the Standard of New
Jersey in 1899 which is the thing
which the decree of the lower court
would undo. was summarized by JUS
tice Hughes.
THE result" suggested Justice
Hughes. lis that the Standard Oil
Of New Jersey after 1899
stood in the place of trustees. those
who held certificates issued by the
trustees. thereafter held stock in
the Standard of New Jersey"
Precisely" said Milburn. 1T is
quite simple when you understand it.
You see there was the body of COM
mon owners of property both before
and after 1899"
Ht new dTTdIEelllentS III 1899 ala
not. he said, suppress competition in
any way. because the properties be-
fore 1899 were not competing being
owned by same persons. One OBJ
lection t. the decree which Milburn
voiced was that of compelling the
Standard of New Jersey to give each
of its stockholders proportionate
share of each corporation whose stock
was held. The small holders of stock
would be seriously embarrassed A
man who owned one share of stock
in the Standard of New Jersey would
get scrip for twenty eight cents
worth of STOCK in one company and
81 30 worth in another. This would
not he marketable, he suggested.
Furthermore. he made statement
that the decree would be ruinous to
much of the properties because the
had no Independent eN-
istence. Then as Attorney General
scribbled down note.
said: from the point of view
Of value"