The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-09-09
DEFENDS HIS COMPANY
j. d. ARCHBOLD BEFORE THE INDUS
TRIAL COMMISSION.
Opponents Of the Standard Oil De.
nOunced, and Testimony of One
Witness Called ga Lusty Lie."


mated controversy took place between
Chairman Phillips. of the commission, and
j. p. Archbold, of New York, vice president
of the Standard Oil Company. MI. Arch
bold was on the stand and replying to
statements made by j. w. Lee, of the
United pipeline and other independent COM
panies. Referring to Mr.. Lees statement
that the Standard company had made ad-
vances to the United Pipeline Company,
with the view of buying it out. Mr. Arch
bold said: Amy 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 but by others con-
nected with the independent lines, includ-
ing Mr. Phillips. I'VE have declined their
Offers he said, because we considered
them illegal, and furthermore, because of
our lack of faith in the men from whom the
proposition came, having had previous ex
perience 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 behalf
Mr.. Archbold several times used the ex-
preston, referring to Mr.. Lee, who was
present in the commission room, 1.-THE state
iient Is 1aiSe anS you snow IL. MI LIZ to
expression.
Mr.. Archbold was on the stand for sew
eral 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 Gen
eral Monet, Of Ohio, Mr.. Westlake. of tt
y .nalx nf ZQliannnlQ
His language for the most part was vigor-
Gus. He characterized many of the state
ments made by the witnesses as untrue and
referred 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
Among the criticisms OF the Standard
company which he contradicted was one by
Mr.. Lee referring to testimony given some
the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, con-
corning rebates to ,he Standard Oil Com
pany. Mr.. Lee had said that Mr.. Cassatt
100000 in the years of 1883. This state
ment, Mr.. Archbold said had been general
ly banded about but he declared 1T was
without foundation, characterizing 1t as
''lusty old lie," having its origin in the de-
auctions 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 scintilla of evidence showing
such a state of affairs. He declared that
the Standard company had neither asked
nor received any discriminating rates from
the railroad companies since the In
feet and had letters from the officers of
various trunk railroads throughout the
country sustaining this statement. Nor had
vantage in the way of "direct tariffs under
billings or special dispatch agreement"
Still the company had never been so pros
81, To- f,1tn off Of
the other hand. If eyer a preferential rate
was given by a railroad company 1t was
found in the case of the tariff made by the
New Jersey Central TO the United States
Pipeline Company.
Replying TO Attorney General Monnett,
Mr.. Archbold expressed the opinion that his
criticism and persecution came with bad
grace from an official of State In which
the Standard company was spending 50, 80
600 per year in wages and he characterized
his course as ''vindictive." He said the
company was determined TO force Mr.. Mon
nett to reveal the whole truth concerning
his allegation that the company had onered
Mr.. Archbold also contradicted Mr.. West
gates testimony 10 the erect tnat the
Standard company had used the barrels ana
statement that the railroad companies had
underbilled the Standard companys tank
cars.
In his reply to Mr.. Lockwood Mr.. Arch
bold dwelt at length with the Matthews and
Rice cases, which Mr.. lockwood mad IN
starced to show, as he claimed; that the
Standard company controlled the courts.
Mr.. Archbold claimed in effect that these
suits had been brought to compel pur-
chase, He asserted that in the Rice case
Rice had tried to induce him to buy his
plant at Marietta, O., for $4,000. when it
was not worth s2ss0o0.a andD had agreed to
see that prosecution IN certain la cases as was
claiming he had sufficient influence to &C
complish this result. He expressed the opin-
ion that Rice was employed as an agita-
enemies Stan0aT0
pany. Mr.. Rice was present in the court
room and it Is understood will reply later.
ferred frequently to the growth of the oil
business in foreign countries. In Russia
this growth was especially formidable, the
product being 10000 barrels per day. He
said the Standard company had no interest
in any foreign production.
Tne witness conciuoed with direct state
ment in support of the Standard Conn.,
pany He took the position in this state
ment that trusts are the necessary. indeed.
the irresistible result Of our rapidly grow
following the example of that greatest of
all commercial nations, England. under
whose commercial charters capitalization
legislative restrictions imposed here would
operate alone to the benefit OF foreign COM
metciat onid Inc n eis. ana su inh
competent Of our own country as against
the strong and aggressive Is too puerile
the opinion that the standard Oil comsina-
ton had been of vast benefit to the world
at large and said, speaking generally, "the
from the great, busy, Industrial classes but
from impractical sentimentalists. yellow
journals and political demagogues. from the
last-naned perhaps. more than any other.
Ii Is veritable attack on thrift and pros
perity. To listen to their voice to the ex-
tent of imposing restrictive legislation
would mean frightful step backward In
the commercial development OF our coun-
try he Suggested national corporations a.