The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1899-09-09
The Testimony of Vice President
j. D. ArehboId Before the
Industrial Commission.
HE CLAIMS GREAT VIRTUES
For the Standard Combination.
Witness Comes Back at Mon.
nett and others.

mlAblQn, anu d " ATCNpoluE uA NeN
York, vice president OF the Standard
on Company. Mr.. Archbold was or
the stand, replying to statements made
by J, w. Lee, OF the United Pipe Line
and other Independent companies. Re.
ferrlng to Mr.. Lees statement that the
Standard company had made advances
to the United Pipe Line Company. with
the view of trying to buy It out, Afr
Archbold said:
"Any approaches on that line have
come from the other side" and he pro-
ceeded to say that such advances had
been made. not only by Lee, hut by
others connected with the Independent
lines, including Mr., Philips, 1--WE have
declined their offers" he said, "be-
cause we considered them illegal. and
furthermore because of our lack Of
faith In the men from whom the prop
osltlon came. having had previous ex-
periehces with them"
In reply to Mr.. Philips, he said he
did not claim that the propositions were
unfair or unjust, but Illegal"
Mr.. Philips attempted to make a
statement at this point, but was cut
of by the commission. on the ground
that he could at any time take the
stand in his own behalf.
This especial Incident closed here.
Mr.. Archbold several times used the ex-
preston, referring to Mr.. Lee. who
was present in the committee room:
"Tbs statement is false, and you know
It," Mr.. Livingston at last objected
to the form OF expression.
AVigorous Contradlctor.
Mr.. Archbold was on the stand for
several hours, closing his statement at
6 O'Clock. During this time. he replied
not only to the criticisms made by Mr..
Lee, but also to thos. made by Attor-
ney General Monnett, of Ohio, Mr..
westgate, OF Titusville, and Mr., Lock-
wood, OF ZelIenoplc. His language for
the most part was vigorous. He char
acterlzed many OF the statements made
by the witnesses as untrue, and refer
red to the witnesses themselves in
anything but complimentary terms. He
said that Mr.. Lee and Mr.. Philips Of
the commission, had both confessed
that they were members Of trust.
Among the criticisms OF the Stand
ard company which he contradlcted was
one by Mr.. Lee, referring to testimony
given some years ago by Mr.. cassatt,
now president of the Pennsylvania rail-
road, concerning rebates to the Stand
ard OF Company. Mr. Lee had snid
that Mr. cassatt had testified that the
refund amounted to SlOOOO,OOO in the
years 1s7S-79. This statement, Mr..
Archbold said, had been generally ban
died about, but he declared that 1t was
without foundation, characterized 1t as
u 'lusty old lie," having It's origin in
the deductions of one man. He also
denied that an arrangement was in
existence for the sale OF lubrlcatlng oil
to the officers OF the railroad companies
to the advantage of the officers there
Of, and he challenged Mr.. Lee to pro-
duce a sctnttta of evidence showing
such a state OF AFFAIRS. He declared
that the Standard company had asked
nor received any discriminating rates
from the railroad companies since the
Interstate commerce law Went into
effect, and read letters from the OFF,
GERS Of various trunk railroads through
out the country, sustaining this state
ment, nor had the company, he said,
been given any advantage in the way
of direct tariffs. Undertakings or
special dispatch agreement"
stfii the company had never been so
prOsperouB ns since that law went into
effect, on the other hand. II ever u
preferential rate was given by n rail-
road company 1t was found In the case
OF the tariff made by the New Jersey
Central to the United Pipe Line Com
pany.
Replies TO NIonnctt.
Replying to Attorney General Mon
nett, Mr.. Archbold expressed the opln-
ion that his criticism and persecution
came with bad grace from an official
OF a state In which the Standard COM
nany was spending $S,25O,OOO per year In
wages, and lie characterised his course
us "VIndletiYe." lie said the company
was determined TO force Air, Monnett
10 reveal the whole truth concerning
his allegations that the company had
offered him brlbe Of 100000.
Mr.. Archbold ulso contrndlctcd Mr..
Westgate's testimony TO the effect thnt
the Standard company has used the
barrels and brands OF other companies,
and also his statement that the railroad
compnnics had under-bllled the Stand
ard compnny's tank cars,
In his reply 20 Mr., Lockwood, Mr.,
Archbold dealt at length with the Mat
thewa and Rice cases, which Mr.. Lock-
yod had instnnccd to show, us he
claimed, that the Standard company
controlled the courts, Mr.. Archbold
cIniIned In efEeut that these suits had
been brought to compel purchase. He
asserted that IN the Rice case Rice had
trlOd TO Induce him TO bay his plant At
Mnrlettn. o., for Sb00,000, when II was
nnt worth s?5, 900, and had agreed TO see
tbat nrogeoltlon In certain cases wns
Stained In case the deal should be
made clnimiug he had sufficient lnilu-
ence 10 accomplish this result. He cx-
messed the opinion that Rice was em-
ployed as an agltator by the enemies
OF the STANDARD company. Mr., Rice
wns present In the court room, and It
is Understood will rcply later.
The witness concluded with a direct