, 1879-06-07
C0AL-01L RING A MYTH.

Watrrn-Plorce OIL Company ytntltcntet.
few weeks ago ccttain articles appeared In thu
| 81. Louih Grocer. trade juurnai published undc
tic auspices OF orccley, Durnham Il Co.. In rc]a.
tloa to coal'oi tna.tcFs. reflect Ing upon the In.
h1'ectus, Harrison Attaway, and the parttcs CHIEF,
engaged In supplying the st. Louis market viii
coal OIL The articles charged that enormous {faudt
had been perprtrated IN gaug!ng md inspecting
coal oil.
| Tic ''Watnrs- Pierce OIL COMPANY" furn3.h
probao1y ninetyn!np hunlgedfhs Of ali tlIc coa oil
sod in st. Lpula, aud. although thcv were no,
directly charged with tho supposed frauds, ttcy at
once sued Greeley, 1'utnham It Co. for q iisel
| upon their business.
large number Of dcpoalt,ons were taken on
both stes and these cnnclnHlycly showed TINT. M
fnr III tbs Waters-ricrce oil Company were con.
| carnea, no wrong whntcycf had been committed; !;
oat that both the Haugng and tcstfn9 hat! been
honestly done. hut The testimony further showed
shnt there had been no fraudulent gaugtnE OF test.
ing done by Y anybody. and that consequently tho
Able. wnR An egscgionA bundcr.
Two or tafce tt'h!nG Irregularities appeared In
rity. nnd mostly chargcabe upon dchclcnce. in ti,c
o!d Inspection law, wllIcl neyor wns senaiule asd
neAs to which It was intended to a1,py.
THO pnblisheta Of tho St. Louis Groctr, learning
tnss h sfIos hSn tue I Tnnooa 10 max. amends S
stnn at ths oil compauT Me nj a,iss. ds.
soa 81 their business pfooity, have Till csra A.
satssfaet!oH, aut are ahout to dismiss hesr suits.
H. It certainly T. sunset q songfa4la!oa tis.
should thut 70 atIc to maintain and vindicate Its
comm"Felnl honor and that lending grocery housu
ttnku Teparntlon for injury committed or suunosrS
to 20 committed by th1n,.
Tbs card referred to Ia ~ follows:
4 CARD.
Readers Of tho 0roctr xho have rcal 4ttentve'y
paper Il, REGARD to uhart.gau9tnr in cual u,l. md
tas dufsliGtions GENERALLY q tho Coal inspect
tho Waters Picrce oil Company Commenced ,'"'r ""
llbe! tutts wa bad not In any waY mentioned tho
nano ot that corporation. ns etarged IL or any Of
picity In the naanor IN which tho GaugiaC and in.
spectson OF c2al oil bud been conducted. There
MSte Mo on sw III yn;d VT; seison, VII. w. IN jnstcc could
thoss ,gentlsmon. or In nny manner hold lhc.n re-.
hsrHnsbIe for 70 =, tue sy.ts Of e9gue which
ssnns tc interests Of the reta @ rocers to o,tass ,fp
anu T. poa:th!e to break up. Ono Of thrss reasons
s sspr IT, .n toS s o4 ou'S tG L.
os'ttY -aome Of whosa members werc our ne erso13at
ana easlnes, friends and men wl'oHo ptol.y and
whose character after long business career Ia H.
Loais, stood abnvo rcnroach. The second, and
most conclusive. reason WIS that, while the evl-
tom Of gaucfng satiahcd ua M 10 il wyoncfn chaT
actcF, there VIVA evidence IN our possogson. nor
i.9a va reasoa to believe. that tic Waters Ficres
gu Company VA. responsible for Or Wero parties to
the wrong Of which VIZ compla!nei. l1AvIng then
posing that cortmration, aud having no snf}tc!ent
grounds on which TO basc any charge neainnt them,
ncr, s!lrrctly OF BY Inference, made any charge
aca!nst them. We wnru much surprised and g.jeyrd
nj their having commenced the suits rcfcrYeu TO-
We therefore take picnsur1 In statlnv pnblicty
Wha. W Lava frequently stated privately in con.
yeTsston % On thss subject, thai: in writing the
erencc was made to ihr Watcrs. Fierce oil Cum
pany.. nor had No knawc,lco of any facts that |
would tn anywtha !npIcato them III the churces wu
had rl1dp