The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-04-07
He Is Not Guilty on the
Tainted Money Count,
A RETORT TO MINISTERS
Signed by the Standard Oil Com.
pany'S General Counsel.

Taken 60 he obviously John ID. Rookie
feIler's Defence-If. In the bad Old
Days, Now Happily Gone by, lie, After
the Manner OF Men, Fought With Beasts
at Ephesus for a Share OF Railway
Rebates big Enough TO Keep Down
the Price or Kerosene, Since the Law
Declared the Fight on He Has Obeyed
the Law, and the Hands That Lay the
500, 900 Gift on the Altar Are Cleaner
Than the Hands That, on a False
Accusation, Would Cast It Out,
THE sun has received what Is obviously
20 be regarded as John d. Rockefeler's
own defence on the charge that the 100000
he contributed to the A. B. L. +. NJ. Of the
ngregational Church was tainted money
and a gift that should be rejected The
defence is signed by the general counsel OF
the Standard Oil Company and Ia as follows:
Nh. RoCKEFELLER's DEFENCE.
There may we'll be difference OF opinion
on the abstract question whether the Board
OF Missions should receive gifts unless
satisfied that the giver is honest; but all
will agree that, II he who brings his gift TO
the altar must come with clean hands, still
more should he who ministers at the altar
and receives the gift be free from stain.
There Il no excuse for those who make
money dishonesty, and still less excuse
for those who in the name Of religion falsely
accuse their fellow men.
The objection 10 Mr.. Rockefeller's gift Is
- III. that no ada hia
money dishonesty. This accusation, il
false. is vile. and being made by ministers
in the pretended interest Of morality Is
doubly vile. The assertion should not be
made unless It can be readily established
by Specifcation and proof. have seen no
proof and no attempt even at specification,
except in the protest Of DR.. GLADDEN.. He
says:
'In this case the investigation has been
thoroughly 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 there
never was a day when their minds we're as
clear on this subject as they are now
Then follows the specification, 'Mr.
Rockefeller 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 its power Is
s1erted IN establishing classification Of
irelEhts in such way that it can kill COM
petition. Rebates are no longer necessary
The assertion Is not true. No such state
Of facts has ever been disclosed by any
Investigation nor supported by evidence
in any court Of law. No such facts exist
70 be proved. The Standard Oil Company
docs not own a share Of stock Of any rail-
road company, nor does il control any
railroad company Stockholders OF the
Standard undoubtedly invest in railroad
az In other shares; but stockholders Of the
Standard are not a majority on the board OF
directors Of any railroad company, 30 far
as am aware, and therefore cannot control
The question Of railway rebates and
Standard control Of railways was inves-
tiRated by the United States Industrial
Commission In 1900, and they reported
no such facts. Members Of the Standard
and Of the railways were examined in re-
lation 10 these subjects. 1t was shown
that prior TO the enactment Of the Inter
state Commerce Law the rebate system
was universal. Railroads made their nomi-
nal rates higher than they expected 20
obtain from regular shippers, and the
amount OF actual freight TO be paid was a
matter Of contract. Each shipper made
the best terms he could. The Standard
did not invent this SYSTEM II found 1t eI-
istng and could not do business without
submitting 10 it. Like all other shippers,
Il made the best terms IL was able 10 make
with the railroads. It's re hneries we're
located at points where II could take ad-
vantage Of railway competiti on. It also
strove 10 give equivalents for reductions
in freight Il shipped not only carloads,
but trainloads. IL provided terminal and
other facilities and assumed all risks Of
loss. Public opinion, more enlightened in
these days than in those, may have dis
covered that this was all wrong, but at
that time the business man who did not
accent that method would better have
closed his shop.
The stories told Of the immense aggre-
gate OF the rebates paid to the Standard
we're shown by that investigation to be
untrue. A large portion Of the rebates
paid were not discriminatory. They were
paid 10 all shippers who shipped eIclu-
sIvely by ran. II was impossible for any
shipper 10 know With certainty what rates
his competitors were paying. The Stand
ard often found that lie 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 otherwiso. And
the price at which the public for many
years mas been obtaining oil would simply
have been impossible had not shipPers
forced the railways 10 reduce their rates,
which they did first by rebates and later
by open schedule.
The system OF rebates has happily re-
ceiyed the condemnation Of law. Inc
Standard welcomed the change a. a bene-
hcia one. But 20 say now that should
not have obtained the best rates under the
old system which he position enabled II
% obtain IL an impossible SuAsel OF per-
lection.
The evidence before the industrial com
unieaiOu aknwra x-oTv rlaaFlV 10 any un=