The Birmingham age-herald., 1905-04-07
Charges That John ), RocEs- feNef Made Money DIshOnGst-
 IY Ire Pronounced Untrue
FALSE AND VILE" ARE THE
 WORDS USED BY MR DOOD
Says Fact That Charges Are Made By Ministers In Pretended Interest of Morality Makes Them
 Doubly Vile.

New York, April 6.--s. c. T. Dodd chief solicitor of the Standard Oil company gave out d statement today with reference to the recent discussion as to the ae- ceptance of a gift of S10o,000 offered ny John D. Rockefeller for missionary work MT. Dodd declares that the statement that MT. Rockefeller made his money dision- estly lis false is vile, and being made by ministers in the pretended interest of morality, is doubIy vile"
 Mr. Dodd then says that the Standard oil company does not own share ot stock of any railroad company; does moi control any railroad company. snd tisdf since the enactment of the interstate com merce law has not received lower rates than other shippers by rebate. arrange ments. devices or plans of any charae- ter The testimony of Howard Page, freight agent of the Standard oil com pany before the individual commission, is | quoted in this connection. With reter- l ence to gas and copper companies MT. Dodd says:
 No doubt many have been preiudiced against MT. Rockefeller by sensational writers whose articles. accompanied by portraits and caricatures, are intended te create the impression that Mir. Rocke- feller was principal in tho affairs relar- ing to the organization of the gas and coppur companies, although no fact show ina such connection i5 stat q t'risa stan- .dard OH eempsas .l1s alreaoS denied that it hau aiy connection or interest direct ly or indirectly in the organizations of hese corporations, and on the best au- thority the same denial is now made | for John D. Rockefeller. He had no con- nectlon with nor interest in. directly or l indirectly the organizations of these cor | Lorations.e
 MT. Dodd's statement Is as follows:
 Quotes Differences of Opinion.
 '"rhere may we'll be a difference of opn- l ion on the abstract question whether the | board of missions should receive gifts, unless satisfied that the giver Is honest; but all will agree that if 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 vituperation. There Is no excuse for those who make money dishonestly, and still less excuse for those who, in the name of religion, falsely &C., cuse their fellow men.
 ''The objection to MT. Rockerfeller's  made his money dishonestly. This accu- sation Is 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 read- fly established by specification except in the protest of Dr. Gladden. He says:
 :" Tn this case the investigation has been thoroughly made, and the facts are known. The legislative inquiries, the re- cords of the courts have given the read l '. aIr for a judgment on the methods of stan dard oil. and there never was a day when their minds were as clear on this subject as they arc now
 Then follows the specifications MT Rockerfelier maintains that no rebates are given to the Standard. but the stan dard now controls about two-thirds of tho railroads of this country and It's power Is exerted in establishing classification Of freights in such way that 1t can kill competition. Rebates are no longer neces- sary.'
 Assertion Is Not True.
 "The assertion is not true. Such a statement of facts has never been dis clesed by any investigation. nor support cd by evidence in any court of law. No such facts exist to be proved. The Standard Oil company does not own 8 share of stock in any railroad company, TOT does 1t control any railroad company.
 
 edly invest in railroad as in other shares. but stockholders of the standard com pany are not a majority on the board of directors of any railroad, so far as I am aware: and therefore the Standard Oil company cannot control any of them.
 The question of railroad rebates and Standard Oil control C, railways was in- vestigated by the United States indus trial commission in 1900. and they re- ported no such facts. Members of the Standard and of the railways were ques- tuned in relation to these subjects 1t was shown that prior to the enactment of the ingerestate commerce law, the re- bate system was universal. Railroads made their nominal rates higher than they expected to obtain from regular shippers. and the amount of the actual freight to be paid was a matter of con tract. Each shipper made the best terms he could. The Standard did not invent this system; it found 1t existing and could not do business without submitting to it. Like all other shippers, 1t made the best rate 1t was able to make with the railroads. It's refineries were located a. points where 1t could take advantage CT railroad competition. It also strove to give equivalents for reductions in freight. 1t shipped not only carloads. but train loads. It provided terminal and other facilities. and assumed all risks of loss. Public opinion. more enlightened in these dsys than those, may have discovered tbat this was all wrong. but at that time the business man who did not accept that method would better have closed his shop.
 investigation Proved It Not True.
 "The stories told of the immense ag- gregate of the rebates paid to the Stan dard. were shown by that investigation to be untrue. A large portion of the rebates