Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-12-03

q act QS this can be called illegaD and lay this company liable for damages. MT. Terry, is able to explain all minor Ques- tions relative to this matter"
 The counsel liked it'' for the receiv- ser in the following amazing decision:
 ''You may, with propriety allow the Standard Oil company to charge 25 cents per barrel for ali oil transported through their pipes to your road, and under stand from MT. Terry that 1t is practica- ble to so arrange the details that the company can. in effect, collect this direct without its passing through your hands. You may agree to carry all such oil of the Standard Oil company or Of others deliv- cred to your road through their pipes at 10 cents per barrel. You may also charge all other shippers 35 cents per barrel | freight, even though they deliver oil to your road through their own pipes and this, gather from your letter and from MT. Terry, would include MT. Rice"
 Now, how was this to be done with propriety2" Simply enough. The Stand ard Oil company was to be charged 10 cents per barrel, less an amount equiv alent to 25 cents per barrel upon all oil shipped by Rice. Provided your ac- counts, bills, vouchers, etc, are consist ent with the real arrangement actually made you will incur no personal re- sponsibility by carrying out such an ar engagement as suggest"
 Even in case the receiver was discov- cred nothing would happen to him, so decided the counsel. ''It is possible that by a proper application to the l court some person may prevent you in future from permitting any discrimina- ton. Even if MT. Rice should compel | you subsequently to refund to him the | excess charge over the Standard Oil company the result would not be loss l to your road, taking into consideration | the receipts from the Standard Oil l company" a - When Mir. Rice found that the rate of 35 cents was really to be enforced he stored his oil at Macksburg and built g. | pipe line of his own from his wells to the Muskegon liver, whence he shipped ] it by barge to Marietta. Some time | later, through the continued agitation | of MT. Rice, the case got into court, and | the correspondence quoted from above
 was made public. The judge before | whom the case was tried held it to be i such gross and wanton discrimina- i ton on the part of the receiver as to
 
 l also appointed by the court to inquire
 into the sums collected from Rice and 1 paid to the Standard, and the money l was ordered refunded. The sum re- | funded was small, less than $500, for
 MT. Rice has always been too belliger- 1 ent gentleman to submit long to an l axtortion. The smallness of the sum l has of course nothing to do with the l matter.
 l The vital thing is that the Standard l Oil company at that period, 1885, still I included in its policy the outrageous l demand that railroads should pay it
 drawbacks on oil shipped for com I petitor. How general this practice was 1 in 1885 there is no documentary proof. ! It is certain that in 1877 it prevailed on | the Central, Erie and Pennsylvania l roads. It is certain that the policy con- l tihued in 1885; how long afterward | there is no evidence to show. In this l case the Standard has explained the l 35 cents charge on all oil except their 1 own made by the railroads as through charge from the wells, covering both 1 pipeage and rail, and the 25 cents paid l them as not a rebate, but pipeage | charge.
 l It was such cases as these of Sco- | field, Shurmer and Teagle and of | George Rice, amply reported and com
 mented on by the press, that kept MT.
 Rockefeller's peculiar relations to the railroads before the public and helped 1 emphasize the necessity for some fed- l eral restrictions in interstate com 1 merce. Reiterated demands for relief
 had been coming to congress for many
 years now East, west, north and 1 south sought help from the injustice l of the railroads. Tn March, 1885, the
 senate of the United States at last re-
 sponded to the peoples appeal and ap- l pointed select committee of five, the l Cullom committee, to investigate the l subject of interstate commerce. There
 was no question in anybody's mind I that this investigation would result in
 some sort of federal regulation. What
 did MT. Rockefeller do in this emergen-
 cy? Only what he could safely and
 easily do through the political depart ment of the Standard Oil company. 1t
 was not necessary for him to make a
 big fight on the interstate commerce
 bill. He could afford to see it pass un-
 dismayed. He was ready for 1t.
 By one of those audacious and splen-
 did strokes which characterize his ca
 reer he had practically freed himself
 from the railroads which had made
 him, and by the time the interstate
 commerce bill was passed and the rail-
 roads ordered to desist discrimination
 MT. Rockefeller was using another
 kind of oil transportation. The legis-
 lation which the oil regions of Penn
 sylvania had demanded for fifteen
 years in hope of securing an equal
 chance in transportation had come too 1 late. The pipe had replaced the rail as
 the great oil carrier, and the pipes
 were not merely under MT. Rockefel-
 ler's control, as the rails had been
 they belonged to him.