Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-12-13

trail Freight Association rule to prevent the
unloading of bulk petroleum in railroad
yards or depots without proper facilities
was for purposes of discrimination was de-
MED. the witness saying such rule was
proper. as such unloading would increase
danger OF loss by fire. He denied that the
Standard Oil Company had been given
commissions from railroads for oil shipped.
these commissions being another form of
rebate.
An Advantage Held by the Standard.
The witness said IL was true that the
Standard Oil with refineries in different
parts of the country had an advantage in
supplying the trade over refiner with
one refinery from which shipments had
been made to all parts of the country, but
he said it pays the same rates over the
railroads. as are paid by all other shippers.
He denied that since the passage OF the
interstate commerce law the Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad Company had paid the
standard OH Company any rebates
Mr.. Rice had charged that tank cars OF
the Standard Oil Company going between
Boston and Newport were underweighed to
the advantage of the Standard Oil Com
pany. He presented affdavits of railroad
officials to show that this underweighng
was through error and was not mistake,
Intentional or otherwise, of the Standard
Oil Company.
Only One Case Discovered.
The interstate law has been in effect for
twelve years. he said. land the Standard
Oil Company has shipped thousands of car
loads of freight all over the United States
freight bills of which have passed through
the hands Of numberiess employees of both
the Standard Oil Company and railroads,
and if any rebates or concessions had been
made on these shipments IL would have
been impossible to keep them secret. Yet.
after twelve years, the only case that has
been brought by the opponents of the Stan
card Oil Company of alleged violation of
the law was in underweighing three or
four cars Of naphtha shipped from Boston
to Rhode Island"
He said that no one tank line since its
formation, or for eight years, had averaged
AZ per cent per annum on the capital in
vested, and he said that outside the Stan
dard oil Company there were 10 individ-
uals and companies owning tank cars with
an aggregate holding of nearly 2.do0 cars
in excess of the cars owned by the Union
tank line, which supplies all the tank cars
used by the Standard OH Company.
Never Used a .GhoSt Train'
Mr. Rice had described what he termed
ghost trains" or trains that went over
railroads at night carrying oil, and that no
railroad man would see them. and there
fore the Standard Oil Company would get
that product through free. Mr.. Page said
the Standard Oil Company had never ship
ped pound of freight on such a train.
even If such train had ever been in exist
ence.
In regard to Mr.. Rfce's allegation that
Mr.. F. B. Squire of the Standard Oil Com
pany of Ohio made him an offer of $3.50
900 for his oil properties" said Mr.. Page.
Il beg to offer affidavit from Mr. Squire
denying this, but affirming that Mr. Rice
offered him his oil properties at one time
for SD 600, and several years afterward Mr.
Rice again offered to sell his oil properties
or for NJ ,.f
S25o0Oo and offered to give Mr. Squire
S5ooo0 of this sum if he could bring about
the sale"
story as to Rebates Denied.
Regarding the statement that in 1894 an
expert accountant discovered that $780,
600 in rebates had been paid by the Atch-
ison. Topeka and Santa Fe railroad the
witness denied that the Standard Oil Com
pany had ever received a dollar of that
money.
Mr.. Page claimed that since the passage
of the interstate commerce law The Stand
ard Oil Company had not received any re-
bates or concessions contrary to either the
letter or the spirit of the law He sail
that while Mr.. Rice and others claimed that
the oil tonnage was a controlling influence
with railroads and officials the total con-
of oil in the United States dur
ing the year 1898, was less than one-half
of per cent Of the total tonnage moved
by the railroads.
Mr.. Page claimed that his company Gid
not receive rebates, because in the first
place 1t was against the law; and secondly,
that from a business standpoint alone /.
was 10 their interest to pay the tariff RACES
He further claimed that the Standard
On Company, by having their reiineries and
plants located at advantageous
points through the country, had an advan-
tage over the competitor who had one plant
located at one point but he claimed that
thls was falr advantage and could not
be overcome by any fair and reasonable
adjustment of freight rates.
He claimed that by these locations at
favorable points through the country the5
We're enabled to market and sell their oil
more cheaply, and that they did sell, by
reason of these facilities. more cheaply to
the consumer, and that it was more to the
interest of the public at large for the COR
sumner to have his oil cheap than it was to
NIX freight rates on any basis that would
allow one refinery at one point to Distribute
ana Sell his products throughout the United
States.