Show GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS BEGIN FIGHT FOR Ox- Ox DISSOLUTION OF STANDARD OIL COr COMPANY PANY W WASHINGTON Tan Jan 11 The Tho Tho Standard Standard Stand Stand- ard Oil dissolution suit will come up in tho supreme court of the United States today toda immediate arguments are concluded on tho the tobacco dissolution dissolution tion suit euit For the rest of oC the tho w week ok the court conn will RIVO vo its it attention to tho the oil suit The governments government's chief object is to toha ha have hatho tho the court declare void fhe the corporate corpo corporate corporate rate or organization of 1899 1809 whereby tho the Standard Oil com company compan- pan of New Jersey with its increased increaser capitalization exchanged ox ex chan changed td itA iU stock for tho the stock tock of other oil corporations which in turn controlled con con- trolled loony other similar f corporations It is claimed that this amal amalgamation resulted in in a combination more moro dice tire thc than before The resultant control control con of oC oil h tho the subsidiary corporations is said to constitute a n monopoly Both Doth results the government govern Jo ment mont contends are in violation of the Sherman law Tin government will claim daim that fol fol- lowing the action o of the tho court in the Northern Securities case caso it must mURt dissolve dis dma solve the Standard Oil on company of New Jersey as 9 asa a a. holding company In urging n that the thc Standard company com corn pany Pliny is 8 monopolizing the government will ar argue e that the the- court must consider consider con con- sider evidence e of price price cutting cutting to drive competitors out of business rebating and preying on competitors by bj secret aceret 0 organization ira ion tion Call Standard Monopoly II If Ie tho the Sherman act means anything in this thiB country says I counsel for the government o in in t their brief brier it means mean a monopoly acquired by such methods of competition as al this Unless it is enforced the small corporation or in who wishes to en engage in business business busi busi- ness will have havo absolutely no opportunity at all This testimony is valuable as 8 show in ing the th intention of the Standard Oil company compan to monopolize the commerce in iu oil throughout tho the United States Inmany In Inmany many districts it has hM an absolute mon monopoly pol We Wo mean bv In- absolute monopoly that it does all of tho the business busi business ness and has bas eliminated every c com coni pot it or U Practically this is the case cage throughout through through- out the nork Rocky mountain countr country and andin andin andin in in most of the Pacific coast states The percentage o of or independent business throughput tho entire southern states is very small Moreover wh where re there is 13 competition tho competitors are aro usually strictly un under er the control of ot the tho Standard in iu that they the must sell oil at practically tIm tho price the Standard dictates die cUe tates and confine themselves to a small percentage of the trade i Combinations effected by purchase according to tho the contention of tho the government got gov O are arc just as mu much h within the I law as ns combinations effected by trust agreements or pooling Defense of Standard Counsel for tho the Standard will WiH argue arguo that tho the Sherman law docs does not prohibit the method of holdin holding property bv by stock ownership All AU m methods are aro lawful tho the company's attorney will ar argue ue if if not used to restrain trade or gain ain an unlawful unlawful un lawful monopoly Lawyers era for the tho Standard will contend con con- tend that tho the Sherman act has no tsp liP application to the tr transfer to or the tile acquisition by hy tho the Standard Stannard Oil com compan company corn com pany pan of N New e J Jersey erso of t tho he stocks of the various arious manufacturing turin and producing in ing corporations for the reason that such trant transfer fer and acquisition were not acts act of interstate tate or foreign n commerce nor direct and immediate immediato in in their effect ef cf feet on interstate or foreign n commerce nor within the power of con congress to tore re regulate interstate or foreign com corn merce Following out this thiR line lino of argument I they the will m ur urge o that purchase or tic ac- of property is not in any sense a contract conspiracy or combination in in restraint of trade The attorneys for the Standard will unite unito in in arguing that there was no suppression sup suji- in in the tho competition in IS ISOO This is based on tho proposition that no real change 0 in ownership was wag effected ef ef- ef- ef because all the properties or stocks representing them were ere acquired by b- n body of common o owners ners for tho the purpose e of a common business 9 and had always been hel held by boY them in in the tho same flamo common common- 0 ownership Because all these prop properties had and have havo common owners owners it will wil m be he argued that the case involved ol the rights of individual individual in in- citizens to own private prop property erty |