The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-04-11


New York, April 6.-S. G. L. Do1d,
lchief solicitor of the Standard Oil Com
ipany, gave out a'Statement today with
reference to the recent discussion us to
the acceptance of a gift of 100000 Of
Ifered by John ID. Rockefeller fo.. mis-
lsionary work. Mr.. Dodd declares that
the statement that Nj. Rockefeller
made his money dishonesty, lis false.
lis vile and being made by ministers III
1.-The pretended interest of morality is
IGoubiy vile"
Mr.. Dodd then says that the Stand
lard Oil Company does o own d share
of stock Of any railroad company. Goes
!Eot control any railroad company and
THAT since the enactment Of the inter-
Estate commerce law, has not received
Hover rates than other shippers by re-
|bates, arrangements, devices o. plans
LOT any character. The testimony Of
AaSN, IIClSAC oSSAL VI AN
standard Oil Company, before the in
Idustrial commission, is quoted in this
connection. With reference to gas
land copper companies, Mr.. Dodd says:
No doubt many have been preju-
ldiced against Mr.. Rockefeller by SEN
|s~atiOnal writer's, whose articles az
|companied by portraits and carica-
Itures, are intended to create the i'm
Ipression that Mr.. Rockefeller was
principal in the affairs relating TO the
organization Of gas and copper GOA.
although no fact showing such
connection is stated. The Standard
IOil Company has already denied that
lit had any connection or interest, di-
Irectly or indirectly, in the Organiza-
ItiOn of these corporations and on the
best authority the same denial is now
made for John d. Rockefeller. He had
no connection with, nor interest in,
directly Or indirectly, the organization
|Of these corporations"
Mr.. Dodd's statement says:
stockholders of the Standard IN
|doubtedly invest in railroad as lii other
but stockholders of the Stand.
ard are not a majority on the board of
directors of any railroad company, so
far as / am aware, and therefore can
not control.
1.-The question of railway rebates and
standard control of railways was in
by the United States indus
trial commission in 1900, and they re-
no such facts. Members oil the
Standard and of the railways were
in relation to those subjects.
1t was shown that prior to the enact
ment Of the interstate commerce law
the rebate system was universal. Rail
roads made their nominal rates higher
than they expected to obtain from:
shippers, and the amount of
freight to be paid was a mat
ter of contract. Each shipper made
the best terms he could. The Stand
ard did not invent this system; it
it existing and could not do bCS-
|iness without submitting to it. Like
all other shippers, it made the best
terms it was able to make will, the
railroads. Its refineries were located
at points where it could take advau-
tage Of railway competition. 1t also
|strOve to give equivalents for reduc-
lions in freight. 1t shipped not only
car loads, but train loads. 1t pro-
|vided terminal and other facilities anu
assumed all risks Of loss. The stories
told Of the immense aggregate of the
rebates paid to the Standard were
shown by that investigation to DC ul-
true. A large portion Of the rebates
paid were not discriminatory. They
were paid to all shippers who shipped
Exclusively by rail.
1.-The Standard often found that it's
competitors had been paying less rates
than it paid. Furthermore the public
obtained the advantage of the low
rates received. A reduced price for
refined oil kept pace with reduction in
rates, whether this reduction was by
way of rebates or otherwise. And the
price at which the public for many
years has been obtaining oil would
simply have been impossible had not
shippers forced the railways to reduce
their rates, which they did first by re
bates and later by open schedule.
1.-The system of rebates has happily
received the condemnation of law.
The Standard welcomed the change as
la beneficial one. But to say now mat
|it should not have obtained the best
rates under the old system which its
position enabled it to obtain is an iIn-
possible counsel of perfection.
1.-The evidence before the industrial
shows very clearly to any
unprecedented mind that since the enact
|ment of the interstate commerce law
the Standard has obeyed it in very
particular. The evidence nj the Sfand-
ard managers and freight agents was