The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-08-29
Charges Against the Santa Fe
Not COrrObOrated.
General Solicitor Smith Replies
to Miss TarbeII's Article.
''NO EVIDENCE AT ALP
NOWitnesses Produced to Testify
at Investigation.
Concerning Collision Between
Railroads and Standard.

Miss Ida NJ. TarbeIIs article on Kan
sas and the Standard Oil company. in |
the September MeClure's, has stirred up
the Santa Fe. The part of it to which
the Santa Re officials take exceptions is
that concerning collision between the
Standard and the railroad companies,
IN which an indefinite charge is made
not by Miss IarbeJi-that the railroads
receive rake-off from the Standard on
all oil that goes through its pipe lines
in return for the railroads making their
rates so high as to be prohibitive, there
by throwing all the oil transportation
business to the Standard.
President Ripley made a denial of this
charge few days ago, and now Judge
W. R. Smith, general solicitor for Kan
sas for the Santa Fe, makes another
statement Judge Smiths statement,
however. is from a legal standpoint, to
show that there is no real proof of the
charge. He says:
Miss TarbelTs last magazine article
contains an artful insinuation that the
Santa Fe railway has received from the
Standard Oil companr zen cents barrel
for all oil carried in the latter's pipe
line from the Kansas oil fields. AS evil
dence of the charge. the self-serVlng
statements of letter purporting to
have been written to Mr.. Monet, an
| ONO lawyer, is presented to the mag
azine's readers as some proof oe the
charge.
1T must be remembered that Mr.
Monett was sent to Kansas last winter
| by Mr.. Hearst, the owner of several
sensational newspapers, and served his
master by giving the Hearst readers
/ daily doses of fiction administered by
telegraph from Topeka. The oil pro-
ducers employed him for time to help
| them draft and present bills to tie
legislature and to initiate suits against
the railroads for discrimination. After
/ a brief attempt 20 serve two masters,
he was discharged by the oi! men as a
bad investment, and left the state.
| "A monument to his genius as law
yer may be found in a bill prepared by
him for passage in the Kansas legis-
| lature, by which the established rules
of evidence were to be overturned and
the astonishing innovation substituted
| by which proof of general reputation il
/ the community that a person or cor
poration was party to a trust CT COM
| bination was sufficient to convict of
such charge. willing Legislature, how
ever would not stand for thi@ unique
and unconstitutional measure. and it
| was defeated.
Miss Tarbell says that at a recent
Kansas investigation the examiner
(meaning Mr.. MonetD presented letter
| containing this:
as Now the railroads have no oil, but
get about 10 cents per barrel for all
| oil going through the pipe lines
1.-The name of the writer is not given
nor was he being examined as a wit
ness, and was never produced to tes-
tify- 1t requires nc legal training to
know that this sort of evidence is no
evidence at all 1t bears the marks of
its architect, conforming to plans and
| specifications adopted in advance
Miss Tarbell makes the admission
that no testimony was presented to
show how much or how little truth
there was in the letter, but that it
made charges of an agreement which
she alleges existed more than twenty
years ago in Pennsylvania. There be-
ing no confederation of the assertions
in the letter, what was the justifica-
ton or excuse for its publication Z?
Manifestly to carry the impression
that its contents were true, for Miss
Tarbell was not defending trusts and
combinations.
This is the proof presented to in
telligent readers N a wI1eiy read
magazine, to bring the public mind to
the conclusion that since the compile
pooling of oil freight between the
Santa Fe railway and the Standard
Oil company. positive denial of the
charge has been made by the highest
officer of the road.
ut is a specious attempt to give
color of fact to a charge based on no
/ evidence to support it and dependent
wholly on inference for its effect, in
the hope that the hurried reader
without giving critical attention to the
source of the story might believe it
to be true"
Judge Smith does not specifically
deny the charge himself, but he calls
attention to President Ripley's denial.
: At the same time Miss Tarbell makes
a strong case against the oil belt rail-
roads. although she does not say posi-
lively that the charge is true. In
fact, she is very fair to the raiIroa DIS
by calling attention to the fact that
the letter making the charge is
anonymous and not supported by any
direct proof at the time it was made
She does, however, call attention to
the fact that this was the. same game
that, was worked by the Standard on
: Pennsylvania rai1roa d. and that the
, circumstances surrounding the Kan
sas incident all point to the proof OF
|, the charge. Here is what Miss Tarbel
says:
: This advance in rates was made
just at the time the Standard Oil COM
pany finished its pipe line to Kansas
: City; and 1t was freely charged thai
: it was the result of a pooling of oil
freight between the Santa F'e and the
: Standard line. At a recent Kansas in
= vestigation the examiner presented
u | the following letter:
:" The reason the Santa Fe and the
, Katy railroads raised rates on oil after
. the pipe line was completed was be
: cause the Standards companies ar
4 ranged with them to do SO, by agree
: ing to give them a per centun upor
{ every barrel of oil that was run
: through their pipe lines on condition
the railroads would increase tn,
freight rate on oil to a prohibitiv,
rate, so that all oil would be forced
e through the pipe line. Now the rail
: roads have no oil, but get about II
It cents per barrel for all oil goinl
e through the pipe lines.
n mo testimony was presented tt
k show how much or how little truth
n there was in this letter. but the agree
a rnent it charges is nothing more o
:, less than what we know existed from
1894 on for several wears at Least he