Show I ATTORNEYS IN ii STANDARD ANDARD ST OIL CASE CASEI J I I QUESTION EACH OTHERS VERACITY New ew York Tork Dec 10 Accusing each ether of saying that which was not true opposing counsel In the government F suit fuit lit against the Standard Oil company compan compana e t a combination in restraint df ir f trade the hearing bearing today Professor i seph jseph Francis Fr Johnson J was being I Frank B Kellogg the lawyer law er several times crit 1 the Standard OH on company compan for fixing upon 1891 which he said was as a aar aar aar ar of exceedingly low prices for the thesis sis year for Its price tables and each time lime me the Standard attorney Moritz Morita Rosenthal replied it was because the g tables showing Increases 1 li oil prices always alWa s start from that i ar arThey arThe They The do not That Is not true at Mr tr Kellogg exclaimed I 1 repeat reppa that they the do answered Mr tr J J and when you say n that that Is true you make mak a statement I ieh Is faire falS t There was a pause when Mr Ir Rosen I thai that resumed his seat but the tilt ended there From the records of the Standards exhibits Mr Kellogg read figures show showing showIng ing lag that in the Standard manufactured barrels banels of or refined oil with a riet iet et earning of or a net profit of CD Ct cents a barrel that in 1906 it Ii manufactured barrels of oil with a net profit of or per barrel bariel Do a general rise r of com corn commodities commodities justified a profit of more than per cent In any an one commodity comm dIt asked Mr tr Kellogg Economists have haxe ae had a hard time de determining determining what a reasonable profit is responded Professor Johnson The witness could not be induced to say that he hc thought the t e profit of per cent and more was outside the bounds of or reason Mr Rosenthal objected to the general tenor of or Mr Ir Kelloggs questions con contending contending tending that it had not been een shown that the 10 a barrel profit came exclusively from the manufacture of oil |