The times., 1899-09-07

been broken up into subcommittee during
the summer taking testimony ia different
parts OF the country, met yesterday in its
headquarters. in the Bliss building, and re-
sumed its investigation OF the oil industry.
The developments Of the day proved to
be somewhat sensational The opposing
forces on the question were each interested
IN making a favorable showing before the
Commission, and each side was represented
at the hearing yesterday. p. c. Boyle,
owner and editor Of the oil City Derrick, -
& newspaper published in the interests OF
the petroleum industry. occupied the wit
ness stand throughout the entire day. Mr.
Boyle, although claiming that he did not
represent the Standard Oil Company, gave
testimony favorable TO that concern. He
declared that there was but one oil trust
and that was the Pure Oil Company, which
embraces the combination of producers and
rehners opposing the Standard company.
When time for adjournment came Mr..
Boyle had not concluded At O'Clock the
Commission decided to adjourn and hear
the witness further today.
Just as this action had been taken and
Mr.. Boyle was leaving the witness stand,
he was confronted by J. w. Lee, who is a
pany but who was at one time employed
as its counsel. Mr. Lee is also a resident
OF Oil City Pa, and came TO Washington
10 hear Mr. BOyle's testimony. He had
occupied a seat a few feet away from the
witness throughout the day and had paid
the closest attention 10 all that was said
Just before adjournment Mr.. Boyle's tes-
umony had been particularly critical of
the methods OF the Pure Oil Company. and
Il was evident when he concluded that Mr..
Lee was laboTing under some agitation
de at once arose, and approaching Mr.
Boyle, said with suppressed rage:
have convicted you once for libel and
] will do 1t again.
This remark. though not uttered in a
loud voice. and evidently not intended for
anyone but the man addressed neyertheles
attracted the attention Of several members
OF the Commission, who were standing
near Chairman Phillips at once stepped
between the men and tried TO engage
hr- Boyle in conversation. He did not sue
ceed, however. until that gentleman had
retorted 10 Mr.. Lee:
My testimony is being given under oath,
and ] am thoroughly responsible for my
statements. ! consider further that this is
not very opportune place for personal
threats
Mr.. Lee endesvored TO carry the matter
further; but Mr.. Phillips drew Mr.
Boyle into al adjoining room. This
closed the incident, as Mr.. Lee and mis-
friends had departed before Mr.. Boyle
emerged and was driven away in q carriage
The incident caused no little discussion
among those who Witnessed it, and further
developments may be forthcoming today.
Mr.. Boyle came to Washington evidently
prepared 10 20 into an exhaustive discus
in the field for some time past, gathering
sion of the oil industry He has had men
IN the field for some time past gathering
Data. This information has all been care
fully typewriter and each document label
ed with its appropriate title. One OF the
clerks who accompanies Mr. Boyle said
yesterday that the whole aggregated some
thing like 1000 pages. great deal of
this is tabulsted statistics and will doubt
less be left with the Commission as supple
mental TO Mr., BoyIe's statements.
Before Mr. Boyle was allowed to pro-
ceed with his testimony yesterday. he was
catechised et some length by Mr.. Phil
lips, the acting chairman of the Commis-
sion aH 90 what relation the 'Oil City Der
rick sustained to the Standard Oil Com
pany. This mode of procedure was OBJ
5ected TO by some of the members of the
Commission, but not until Mr. Boyle had
admitted that his paper had seen no cause
70 crftfcise the Standard Oil Company for
many wears He would not admit that il
but said that 1t was friendly 10 the entire
industry. The witness was then allowed
10 proceed with the subject in his own way
and began by reading from his extracts q
general review of the oil industry in this
country. He traced its gradual develop
ment mentioned the effect on the trade oi
the establishment OF the first pipe lines
as well as Of later developments which
have eheapened the cost Of production
Figures were read to the Commission show
ing the production in any one year, as
well as the aggregate production and value
Of the output from 1860 TO 1899. The value
OF the oil produced in this country be-
tween the latter dates was given as
fT7s, III. SAT.
Mr.. Boyle's principal objection 10 tn,
opposition TO the Standard Oil Compan!
was that these independent companies en-
deavo-ed 70 establish competing pipe lines
This they did. he declared al the expens
of the consumer. and then expected 4
make q profit besides. In every case, too
he said these new lines were built wher
there was already a line that was sufi
cient in capacity TO handle all the business
When asked the question in parable
case, as TO whether he would object If a.
opposition railroad was 10 be built int
New York City, provided there was airead
but one road there, and that with sufh
Client capacity TO do all the business. tn
witness replied he would. provided III
people were TO be assessed TO build tn
road and then charged 10 ride on IT,
The witness was particularly severe O
the Pure Oil Company He said il was
trust OF the worst kind; that It was forme
for the purpose OF deceiving the public
and that while no dividends were paid o
------------