The Detroit times., 1911-01-02
'FIGHTAGl||
!. GREATTD||I
TO H|GH C0(
Arguments win Begin Tllis
Supreme Court in Cases 4
solve Standard Oh and Az
Monopolies.
Remarkable Array Of Legal
Will Argue for Governne7
and Monopolies.

| WASHINGTON, Jan. 2.--The %
ments which open tomorrow - "a
| United States supreme court n
suit to dissolve the Standard Oh tn
is the beginning OF the last chGc
in the long fight against that mos
oily. NJ
The present case must not boi ~ K
fused with the $29,000,O00 nne p11
ceedings. That was a criminal 01
for accepting rebates brought atGEr1
the Standard Oil Co. of indiana. II
present case Is q civil suit for dioo6
ton brought against the Standard an
Co., OF New Jersey, under the 6horn1o
antitrust act.
rior to 1906, there had been mox
state attacl-s upon Standard oil siuo11
to the Indiana case. But in June
1906 President Roosevelt determtn
10 start the first great national pro-
cutfon of the monopoly and man
Frank b. Kellogg. OF st. Paul, p
| Charles B. Morrison, of Chicago. ~
special assistants to act with MiltOn
Purdy, assistant attorney general. '
| Charges Against Trust.
| These men made a swift tnvest3<
tion OF the trust, brought In an ind 4
ment on which was based the pre-
suit. In their cursory speech. KeIfC
and his assistants brought out the M
lowing accusations: S'
| mat 80 per cent OF the refined ~
used In the United States and exr6xfe
ed from her shores was furnished bY
the Standard Oil Co.-prima facte an
dence OF the existence of monopo1Y*
That as early as 1870, John -. RoGk-
efeller, William Rockefeller, n. II.
Rogers, Henry M. Flagler, John y.
Archbold, oliver III. Payne and Charles
M. Pratt came together in an aoroCr
ment designed to suppress compQtE
ton In the oil business.
That In 1899 the Standard on Co. ~
New Jersey. which had been ~
viously organized, became = holdIGE
company to evade the Ohio decIn114s
the holding company acting ~ t6n
tee Of subsidiary stock ins1c1E ~ e(&o
loriginal seven men. }S< w. ~
4 That the. New JerasytS 1 II
stock was raised from W (
500, 100000, and that the10 WuX "a ~
to the company's charter the cIauo9'
empowering 1t to buy and hold stock
of subsidiary companies,
On this information the sGoyeenn1ent,
at the instance of for1uer AttornGT~'
General Moody, filed suit against the
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey tn
seven owners and about seventy eub-
sidiary concerns in the United Skatoo.
circuit court at st. Louis, Nov IL
1906. The government prayed fhot'
the trust be declared illegal and Dr.
solved, and that the Subsidiary con-
Germs be enjoined from paying divl-'
dends TO the parent corporation.
Then followed many months OF tog~
timony There were 444 hearings b0<
fore Referee Franklin Farriss, Ap&
pointed by the court, in many c1tien.
Rockefeller Gives TesctIncnys
The generals OF the oil industry, and
the crushed, broken drivers or single
competing oil wagons fiocked to the.
hearings to tell their stories. ohm ~.
Rockefeller himself was hailed beforo
the New York referee.
The testimony taken, the govern
ment on April 3, 1909, fled It's maj
brief before the St Louis court ana
asked that the case be advanced for
trial
No witnesses came before the court,
but a drayload of dry words substi-
tuted for the sweat and blood or the
referees hearings.
Judges Vandeyenter, Hook, Adams
a. Sanborn heard the arguments and
on Nov. 2. 1909, Judge Sanborn, at 81.
Paul, read the decision. IL was .
sweeping victory for the government
Not only was every gOvernment con-
tention upheld, but thes court went
| further; IL forbade the Standard TO
engage I'm interstate commerce by
pipe line or tank cars. The court or
dered the trust TO dissolve and TO be,
gin 1t in 80 days.
A stay OF execution was granted
pending an appeal, which ordinarily
would be TO the court OF appeals. but
the four circuit judges, sitting extra
ordinary on the case, were In effect
court OF appeals. so the appeal was
taken directly 10 the supreme court In
December, 1909.
The case had precedence. Arguments
were heard early and "A decision was
expected by spring. But death had
invaded the supreme court and it,
members thought II best not TO dis
pose of a case OF such momentous Inn
portance with an incomplete body. Ac~
cordingly the case was assigned Tor
re-argument before the new jundges a.
this winters session
WASHINGTON. Jan. 2.--ln some
particulars the case against the to-
bacco trust and that against Standard
OIL are 50 dssimiar that the court
might find in favor OF the government
In one case and against Il In the
other.
the two cases are alike In that
they are proceedings In equity to en-.
join alleged violations OF the law m
neither case does the goVernment seek
to procure either the imprisonment e.
individuals or exemplary hncs UPON
\ the dependents. I'm both suits the
CHARGES pressed are those allckinE w.
lawful combination and conspiracy -
restraint OF interstate trade and c.
merce, and continuing monopoly<
4 attempted monopoly. OF important
meuts In Interstate commerce.
rrNFnDI.T sc AHl34oN