Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-09-09


TERDAY - DECLARED THAT
THOSE WHO ARE BADGERING
THE STANDARD ARE MEMBERS
OF TRUSTS AND ARE NETTLED
BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT
USE THE STANDARD TO THEIR
OWN PROFIT AND ADVANTAGE.
WASHINGTON. September Sat to-
days session of the lndustriaol Com
mission an animated controversy occur
RED between Chairman Phillips, of the
Commission. and ]. d. Archbold. of
New York, vice president of the Stand
ard oil Company. Mr.. Archbold was
on the stand replying to statements
made by j. w. Lee, OF the United Pipe
Line, and other Independent companies.
Referring to Mr.. Lees statement that
the Standard Company had made adj
vances to the United Pipe Line Co with
the view of buying it out, Mr.. Arch
bold said:
come from the other side" and he pro-
ceeded to say that such advances had
been made not only by Lee. but by
others connected with the independent
lines, including Mr.. Phillips. We have
declined their offers" he said, because
we considered them illegal, and furth-
ermore because of our lack Of faith in
the men from whom the propositions
came, having had previous experience
with them"
In reply to Mr.. Phillips, he said he
did not claim that the propositions
were unfair or unjust, but Illegal"
Mr.. Phillips attempted to make
statement 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 behalf.
This special incident closed here. Mr..
Archbold several times used the express
sion, referring to Mr. Lee, who was
present in the commission room, "The
statement is false and you know it."
Mr.. Livingston at last objected to the
form of expression.
Mr.. Archbold was on the stand for
seven hours, closing his statement at
5 o'clock. During this time he replied
not only to the criticisms made by Mr..
Lee, but also to those made by Attor-
ney General Monnett, Of Ohio, Mr..
Westgate, of Titusville, and Mr. Lock
wood, of Zelienople. His language for
the most part was vigorous. He char
acterized many of the statements made
by the witnesses as untrue and refer
red to the witnesses themselves in any
thing but complimentary terms. He
said that Mr.. Lee and Mr. Phillips, Of
the commission, had both confessed
that they were members of trust.
Among the citicisms OF the Standard
Company which he contradicted was
one by Mr.. Lee. referring to testimony
given some years ago by Mr.. Cassett,
now president Of the Pennsylvania
Railroad Company, concerning rebates
to the Standard Oil Company. Mr..
Lee had said that Mr. Cassatt had tes-
titled that the refund amounted to S10,-
100000 in the years 1888 This state
ment. Mr.. Archbold said, had been gem
orally banded about, but he declared
it was without foundation, character
izing 1t 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 lubri-
eating oil to the officers Of the railroad
companies to the advantage Of the Off
GERS thereof, and be challenged Mr.. Lee
to produce a scintilla Of evidence show
ing such a state Of affairs. He declar-
ed that the Standard Company had
neither asked nor received any discrim-
mating rates from the railroad com
panies since the interstate commerce
law went into effect, and read letters
from the officers of various trunk rail-
roads throughout the country sustain
ing this statement nor had the COM
pany, he said. been given any adyant-
age in the way Of direct tariffs. UNDER
billings or special despatch agree
ment."
Still the company had never been 50
prosperous as since that Law went into
effect On the other hand. If ever a
preferential rate was given by rail-
road company, 1t was found il the case
Of the tariff made by the New Jersey
Central to the United Pipe Line Com
pany
Replying to Attorney General Mon
nett, Mr.. Archbold expressed the opin-
ion that his criticism and persecution
came with bad grace from an official u
State in which the Standard company
was spending ss.250.O00 a year in wages.
and he characterized his course as win
dictive.s He said the company was de-
termIned to force Mr. Monnett 10 reveal
the whole truth concerning his allega-
tlons that the company had offered him
a bribe of $500. 900.