The Bellefontaine Republican. [volume] (Bellefontaine, Logan County, Ohio) 1855-1905, 1899-02-24

P'"" ooSflmes tnat II the
standard Is cut on Tom the Trust, that
Will % ruined. Yet he follows this
cmeaiateiy with she statement that sit
g by the eliminatid,n m of waste. by the
savieg OF time' an d by the saving of
needles operating Expenses, that crude
oil is made more valuable and refired
oil cheaper" Surely if this is true,
small companies that do not have these
advantages could not compete with the
Standard, and there is nothing what
ever in the cry that it would be ruined
by shutting it out from the Trust. Its
advantages would enable it to defy all
competition.
But Mr.. Lampson's assertion that the
Standards methods have increased the
price of crude oil and cheapened the
price of refined oil, is not proven. 1t is
openly charged that the Standard crush
es out ali opposition, not by furnish
ing better or cheaper oil, but by meth
ods that are not considered honorable in
other businesses, that it forces to the
wall companies that furnish better and
cheaper oil; and that it puts the price OF
crude oil down or up as suits its interest,
regardless of the interests of other pro-
ducers, and of the public.
One thing is tue and cannot be dis
puted; either the STANDARD has, by i'm
proper methods. practically crushed out
nearly all companies that came in COM
petition with it; or it has overcome near
ly all competition by furnishing cheaper
or better oil. Mr.. Lampson says it has
been by its savings of time, operating e1-
penses, etc. If it is the former,
no man ought to defend it. If it is the
latter, then the forcing it to withdraw
from the Trust would not ruin it, as Mr..
Lampson claims.
Mr.. Lampson asks if any other Com
pany could do better-furnish the peo-
pie with better and cheaper oil? That
is just the question the people want an.
swered. And the only way to settle it,
is to prevent the formation of trusts and
combines that will shut out all fair com.
petition. 1t is not for the Standard, OF
its attorneys or its apologists to settle
that question, but for the people.
Mr.. Lampson makes the argument
that it would not be for the public in
terest to destroy a great Company like
the Standard, and drive it from the State
"a Company that employs thousands o
men and spends millions of dollars il
developing the oil industries of th'
State. He persists in asserting that tn
effort to break up the Trust is move t.
destroy the standerd Oil Company. Hi
argument, however, is fallacious. 1t i
built on false premises and reaches falls
conclusions. 1t is the same argumen
that was made against destroying slay
ery. There were hundreds of million
invested in slaves, and hundreds {
thousands of men dependent on SLAYER
for their living. The same argument
made in favor of the liquor traffic. ]
has hundreds of millions of capital in
vested in it, and hundreds of thousand
of men make their living out OF. Bu
slavery was abolished and the South ha
; increased in wealth as it never did i
the days of slavery. If the Standard wei
abolished there would be scores of com
panies started to fill its place, and th
sharp competition would create muc
greater demand for labor and capital in
vested in the business, than the Stand
ard employs, and there would be muc
greater development of the business.
This is all there is of the Lampson apo
ogy for the Standard. There is nothin
in it. 1t proceeds on the false assumptio
, that the State is trying to ruin tn
Standard; it's arguments knock one al
other in the head; it builds altogethe
on the premise that the Standard is th
only company that could furnish th
, people as good and as cheap oil, and
arrives at the impotent conclusion ths
. if the Standard Oil Company should di
, it would be followed by earthquake
: and famine, and the wreck of worlds.
We close with question, the answt
,, to which may give Mr.. Lampson an or
portunity to think: II the Standard o
Company has left the Trust, as it says
has, why is the Standard not alread
ruined, as Mr.. Lampson says it wou
. be, if it left the Trust?