The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-04-07
FORCES DEFENSE
OF STANDARD OIL
DR.. Gladden's Criticisms Goad
Dodd, Chief Counsel to Break
Silence for Rockefeller.

Dodd, Chief Counsel, to Break
Silence for Rockefeller.
New York, April IS G. T., [Dodl,
chief solicitor of the Standard Oil com
pany, gave out statement today with
reference to the recent discussion as
to the acceptance of gift Of 100000!
offered by John D. Rockefeller for mis-
sionary work. Mr.. Dodd declares that
the statement that Mr.. Rockefeller
made his money dishonesty ''is false,
tiers in the pretended interest of NOR
atty, is doubly vile.'
Mr.. Dodd then went ahead to prove
to his own satisfaction that Mr.. Rookie
Teller had not made his money dishon-.
estly, and therefore the "double vile
nessD Of The clergymen must be taken
as established logically. - ~
pany did not own share Of stock ct
any railroad company or control any
railroad company, and that since the
enactment of the interstate commerce
laws the company had not received low
er rates than any other shippers by re.
bates, arrangements, devices or plans Of
any character. The testimony Of How
-
Oil company, before the industrial com
mission, was quoted in that connection.
The Copper and Gas Deals.
With reference to gas and copper
companies, Mr.. Dodd says:
No doubt many have been prejudiced
against Mr.. Rockefeller by sensational
+ writers, whose articles, accompanied by
portraits and caricatures, are intended to
create the impression that Mr.. Rookie
Teller was principal in the affairs re-
lating to the organization OF the gas and
copper companies, altho no fact showing
such connection is stated. The Standard
OIL company has already denied that it
had any connection or interest, directly
Z or indirectly, in the organization of these
corporations, and on the best authority
the same denial is now made for John o.
Rockefeller. He had no connection with
nor interest In, directly or indirectly, the
organization OF these corporations.
The Dodd Statement
Mr.. Dodds' statement is as follows:
There may we'll be a difference of opin-
1oI on the abstract question whether the
board of missions should receive gifts I'M
less satisfied that the giver is honest; but
all will agree that if he who brings his
gift to the altar must come with clean
bands, still more should he who ministers
at the altar and receives the gift be free
from siajn There is no excuse for those
who make money dishonesty md still
less excuse for those who, in the name
of religion, falsely accuse their fellow
men.
The objection to Mr.. Rocketeller's gift
is based upon the allegation that he made
his money dishonesty. Their accusation
is false is vile, and, being made by min
listers in the pretended interest Of moral
ity. is doubly vile. The assertion should
not be made unless it can be readily es-
tablished by specification and proof
.s2 Quotes DR.. GLADDEN..
I have seen no proof and no attempt
even at specification except in the protest
of Or. GLADDEN.. He says:
TN this case the investigation has been
4thoroly made and the facts are known.
The legislative inquiries, the records OF
the courts, have given the reading people
Of this country the materials for judgment
upon the methods Of Standard OIL, and
never day when their minds were
as clear on this subject as they are now"
Then follows the specification, MIR. Rock
efeller may deny that rebates are now
given to the Standard; but the Standard
now controls about two thirds Of the rail-
roads of this, country, and it's power Is
seXerted in establishing classification OF
fre!ghts in such way that it can kill
competition. Rebates are no longer nee
essary." n e.
The assertion is not true. No such
state Of facts has ever been disclosed by
any investigation nor supported by evil
dence in any court Of law. No such facts
exist to be proved. The Standard on
Company does not own a share of stock
of any railway company, nor does 1t con-
troll any railroad company. Stockholders
of the Standard undoubtedly invest In
railway as we'll as osler shares, but stock
holders Of the Standard are not in ma
jority of the board of directors of any
railway, as far as know. and therefore
cannot control.
Before Rebate Law.
The question Of railway rebates and
Standard control Of railways was investi
gated by the United States industrial
commission in 1900. and it reported NJ
such facts. Members of the Standard ant
of the railways were questioned in rela
ton to these subjects 1t was shown tina
prior to the enactment of the interstat,
commerce law the rebate system was uni
versal Railroads made their nominal rate:
higher than they expected to obtain from
z regular shippers and the amount Of actu
al freight to be paid was matter of con
tract. Each shipper made the, best terms
he could.
The Standard did not invent this sys
tenn. 1t found it in existence and coult
not do business without submitting to It
Like all other shippers, it made the hes
terms it was able to make with the rail-
roads. Its refneries were located a
points where it could take advantage O.
railway competition. It also strove t,
give equivalents for reductions in freight
1t shipped not only in carloads but train
loads. 1t provided terminals and .othe
facilities and assumed all risks Of loss
Public opinion, more enlightened In thes,
days than in those, may have discovered
that this was all wrong, but at that time
the business man who did not accep
that method would better have closed hi
shop.
No Fortune in Rebates.
The stories told Of the immense aggre
gate Of rebates paid to the STANDARD
were shown by that investigation to b.
untrue. A large portion of the rebate.
paid were not discriminatory. They were
paid to all shippers who shipped exclu