The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-09-09
Standard Oil Company Before the
Industrial Commission.
ARCHBOLD IS DEFIANT
THE VICE PRESIDENT CLASHES
WITH THE CHAIRMAN.
Assumes an Aggressive Attitude and
Makes Bold and Serious Charges
Declares That Crusade Against
Great Corporations Is Step Back
ward, Made By Demagogues.

washington, Sept. S.-At todayS SeS-
sion of the industrial commission. an
animated controversy occurred between
Chairman Philips of the commission
and ]. D. Archbold of New York, vice
president of the Standard Oil company.
Mr.. Archbold was questioned and re-
piled to statements made by j. d. Lee
of the United Pipe Line company and
other independent companies. Refer
ring to Mr. Lees statement that the
Standard had made advances to the
United Pipe Line company with a view
to buying it out, Mr.. Archbold 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 connected with the Independent
lines, including Mr.. Philips.
I'VE have declined their Offers he
said, because we considered them lille
GAL and furthermore because of our
lack of faith in the men from whom the
propositions came, having had previous
experience with them
In reply to Mr.. Philips, be said he
did not claim that the propositions were
unfair or unjust, but illegal
Mr.. Philips attempted to make a
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.
Says Statements Are False.
This especial incident closed here.
Mr.. Archbold several times used the
expression, referring to Mr.. Lee, who
was present in the commissions 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 Louisville and Mr.. Lock
wood of Zelianople. His language for
the most part was vigorous. He char
acteriZed many of the statements 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.. Philips of
the commission 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
which was given some years ago by
Mr.. Cassatt, now president of the
Pennsylvania Railroad company, con-
corning rebates to the Standard Oil
company. Mr.. Lee had said that Mr.
Cassatt had testified that the refund
amounted 10 s10,00O,OO0 in the years
1888.
a Lusty Old Lie.
This statement, Mr. Archbold said
had been generally banded about, but
he declared it was without foundation,
characterizing it as "a lusty old lie,''
having its origin in deductions of one
man. He also denied that an arrange
ment was in existence for the sale of
oil to the officers of the
railroad companies to the advantage of
the officers thereof, and he challenged
Mr.. Lee to produce scintilla of evil
dence showing such a state of affairs.
He declared that the Standard COM
pany had neither asked nor received
any discriminating rates from the rail-
road companies since the Interstate
commerce law went into effect, and
read letters from the officers of various
trunk railroads throughout the coun-
try sustaining this statement. Nor had
the company, he said, been given any
in the way of direct tariffs
under billings or special dispatch agree
ment.' Still, the company had never
been so prosperous as since that law
went into effect.
That Bribery Charge.
Replying to Attorney General Monet,
Mr.. Archbold expressed the opinion that
his criticism and persecution came with
bad grace from an official of a state in
which the Standard company was
spending s3,250,c30 per year in wages,
and he characterized his course as win
dictive." He said the company was
determined to force Mr. Monet to re-
veal the whole truth concerning his
that the company had Of
fered q bride of 100000.
Mr. Archbold also contradicted Mr..