The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-01-13
STANDARD O|L IS
 FIGHTING FOR LIFE  Attorneys Argue Case Before
 the Supreme Court HISTORY OF INDUSTRY
Attorney for Oil Company Traces the
 History of John ID. Rockefeller ; and His Connection With the I si oil Business

Washington, January 12.-Fighting for its life. attorneys for the Standard oil company today argued before the supreme court of the United States against the proposed dissolution of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, as violative Of the sherman antitrust law. For three hours John G. Milburn of New York ad- dressed 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.
 MT. Milburn's task was to present to the court the z.facts' in the case, but he departed from the facts now and then 10 show what alleged wrongs the affirmanae of the dissolution decree of the lower court would incur
 In his history of chaotic conditions in the oil business between 1860 and 1s70 due, he said to an over-production of refining capacity MT. NIiburn introduced to the court the character of John D. Rocke- felier
 ''There was out there in Cleveland" said he, a young man in the early sos with small amount of money which he had saved, who possessed the gift of ge- nius.s He had the genius for business and there is a genius for business just as there is a genius for war or poetry, or painting. That man was John D. Rock efeller. He saw that this over-produc- tion of refineries was to be met by vol tune of business so as to withstand the lower profits"
 He then told how Rockefeller allied him. self with Andrews. a practical oil re- finer and how with the exercise of Rock efeller's genius for business and their consequent good standing among finan- ciers, they grew rapidly.
 Mir Milburn dwelt particularly upon the period of acquisition, which, he said. closed in 1879: the trust agreement of 1892 and the new arrangement of own ership in 1899. Acquisitions never had been made, MT. Miburn told the court, with an intent to restrain or monopolize interest trade. Most of the purchases were made he said. >before 1879.
 I've thought 1t was only the decent thing to do if a man came to us,' said MT. Mlburn, with a proposition to sell out to buy his plant with appraised value. Often it was practically worthless, and we could have permitted it to go to dry rot in his hands,"
 He denied the charges of the govern ment that the Standard Oil company had the advantages of such preferences from the railroads during the period of acqu- sition that it should now be punished. The contracts between the railroads and the Standard were not in restraint of trade he contended, "when sviewed in the light of the days in which they were made.''
 Even the history of the South Improve ment company. which MT. Mlburn re- ferred to as embodying the Romance of Times" was not a restraint of trade. He explained to the court that the South Improvement company was incorporated in 1872 upon the insistence of the railroads. The railroads and oil refiners were par ties to it. They were to carry on a com mon business and distribute the profits. MT Milburn said the state of Pennsyl- vania repealed the charter of the com pany before it could carry a gallon of oil
 The trust agreement of 1892, whereby trustees exchanged their certificates for the stocks of the various "common own ers'' of Standard Oil company came in for much attention.
 In connection herewith MT. Milburn maintained that the supreme court of Ohio did not dexide that "the trust' was illegal, but simply requested the Standard oil Company of Ohio to withdraw from the trust agreement.
 His extended remarks about the reor- ganization of the Standard oil Company of New Jersey in 1899. which is the thing the decree of the lower court would undo, was summarized by Justice Hughes.
 "The net result.' suggested Justice Hughes, lis that the Standard Oil Com pany of New Jersey. after 1899. stood in the place of the trustees and those who held the certificates issued by the trus- tees thereafter held the stock of the Standard oil Company of New Jersey"
 Precisely said MT. Milburn. Ut is quite simple when you understand it. You see, there was the same body of com mon owners of the property both before and after 1S99."
 At this point he referred to the argu-7 ment of the Standard upon which 1t is pinning its faith in the present controver- sy that the new arrangement of 1899 did not suppress competition in any way, because the properties before 1899 were not competing. they being owned by the same persons.
 One objection to the decree which Mir. Milburn voiced was that by compelling the Standard of New Jersey to give to each of it's stockholders a proportionate share in each of the corporations whose stock it held the small holders of stock would be seriously embarrassed, For in stance, the man who owned one share of stock in the Standard of New Jersey would get scrip for 28 cents worth of stock in one company and S2bO worth In another. This would not be marketable, he suggested Furthermore, he made the statement that the decree would be ruin ous to much of the properties because the companies had no independent ex- istence. Then, as Attorney General Wick ersham scribbled down note MT. Mll- burn added from the point Of view