Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1899-09-09
WHAT HIS TRUST HAS DONE
PAYS MORE TO PRODUCERS AND
CHARGES CONSUMERS LESS.
Secured the Markets of the World for
American PetroIeum-DeniesT Tint
standard Oil Company Re-
ceiyes Rebates From
Railroads.

WASHINGTON, Sept. Sat to-day's ses-
SION OF the industrial commission. an ami
mated controversy occurred between
Chairman Phillips, of the commission, and
J. d. Archbold, of New York. vice presi-
dent of the Standard Oil Company. Mr.
Afehpoid was on the stand and replying
to statements made by j. w. Lee, of the
United Pipe Line and other independent
companies. Referring to Mr. Lees state
ment that the Standard company had made
advances to the United Pipe Line Com
pany with the view of buying II out, Mr.
Archbold said: Any approaches on that
line have come from the other side" and
he proceeded to say that such advances
mad been made, not only by Lee, but by
others connected with the independent
lines, including Mr.. Phillips. I'VE have
declined their offers, because we considered
them Illegal, and Furthermore, because of
our lack of faith in the men from whom
the proposition came, having had previous
experience with them
In reply to Mr.. Phillips, he said he did
not claim that the propositions were "un-
fair or unjust, but Illegal
Mr.. Phillips attempted to make a state
ment at this point, but was cut off by the
commission on the ground that he could at
any time take the stand in his own be-
half.
Mr.. Archbold several times used the ex-
preston, referring to Mr.. Lee, who was
present in the commission room, "The
statement is false and you know it, Mr..
Livingstone at last objected to the form
of expression.
Mr.. Archbold was on the stand for seven
hours, closing his statement at o'clock.
During this time he replied not only to the
criticisms made by Mr.. Lee, but also to
those made by Attorney General Monnett,
of Ohio; Mr.. Westgate of Louisville, and
Mr.. Lockwood, of Zelianople. His Ian
guage for the most part was vigorous.
He characterized many of the statements
made by the witnesses as untrue, and re-
ferred to the witnesses themselves in any
thing but complimentary terms. He said
that Mr.. Lee and Mr.. Phillips of the COM
mission, had both confessed that they were
members of a trust
Among the criticisms of the Standard
company which he contradicted was one
by Mr.. Lee referring to testimony given
some years ago by Mr.. Cassatt, now pres
ident of the Pennsylvania Railroad Com
pany. concerning rebates to the Standard
Oil Company. Mr.. Lee had said that Mr.
Cassatt had testified that the refund
amounted to s1O,0O0OO0 in the years 1883
This statement Mr.. Archbold said, had
been generally banded about, but he de-
clared it was without foundation, char
acterizing it as "a lusty old lie,' having
its origin in the deductions of one man.
He also denied that an arrangement was
in existence for the sale of lubricating oil
to the officers of the railroad companies
to the advantage of the officers thereof
and he challenged Mr.. Lee to produce q
scintilla of evidence showing such state
of affairs. He declared that the Standard
company had neither asked nor received
any discriminating rates from the railroad
companies since the interstate commerce
law went into effect, and had letters from
the officers of various trunk railroads
| throughout the country sustaining this
| statement. Nor had the company. he
| said, been given any advantage in the way
of direct tariffs, Undertakings or special
| dispatch agreements
Still the company had never been sc
| prosperous as since that law went into ef-
| feet.
| On the other hand, if ever a preferential
| rate was given by railroad company, i,
was found in the case of the tariff made
| by the New Jersey Central to the United
| Pipe Line Company.
Replying to Attorney General Monnet
Mr.. Archbold expressed the opinion thai
his criticism and persecution came with
| .
| which the Standard company was spend
| ing S3,2JO0O0 per year in wages, and he
| characterized his course as 'vndictive.'
| He said the company was determined tc
| force Mr.. Monnett to reveal the whole
| truth concerning his allegation that the
| company had offered him bribe of $500 600
| Mr.. Archbold also ontladicted Mr.. West
| gates testimony to the effect that thu
| Standard company had used the barrel.
and brands OF other companies, and alst
| his statemenat that the railroad compane
| had underbilled the Standard tank cars
| In his reply to MIR Lockwood, Mr.. Arch
| bold dealt at length with the Matthews ant
| Rice cases, which Mr.. Lockwood had in
| stanced TO show, as he claimed, that tn
Standard company controlled the railroad
/ Mr.. Archbold claimed in effect that thes
| suits had been. brought to compel pur
chase. He asserted that, in the Rice case
| Rice tried to induce MIN to buy his plan
| at Marietta, o.. for S5OO,O00 when it was no
| worth $4,000, and had agreed to see tina
| prosecution in certain cases was stopped Il
| case the deal should be made claiming h
had sufficient influence to accomplish thi
result. He expressed the opinion that Ric
| was employed as an aGitator by the enc
! mics of the Standard company. Mr.. Ric
| was present. in the court and 1t is under
stood will reply later.
During his testimony Mr.. Archbold re
ferred frequently to the growth of the oi
| business in foreign countries. In Russi
| this growth was especially formidable, tn
| product being 10000 barrels per day. H
| said the Standard company had no interes
in any foreign production.
The witness concluded with direct state
ment in support of the Standard company
He took the position in this statement tha
trusts are the eceSsary-indeed, the ir
resstible-result of our rapidly growing
commerce. in adopting them, we are bu
| following the example of that greatest o
all commercial nations. England unde
| whose commercial charters capitalization
and scope are practically unlimited. An,
| legislative restriction imposed here would