The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1906-05-05

| lace OF VlOleIlL nos lllly OIL LlAS pal "
the railroads, which naturally were OPP
posed to the Introduction of such means
of transportation. AT enormous cost,
and in the face of steadfast railway OPP
position, at an early date, the Standard
Oil company adopted the pipeline
method for handling crude petroleum.
The first line was extended from the
Western Pennsylvania oil fields to Ber-
gen Point, on the Atlantic coast. This
line diverted an enormous amount OF
freight from the railroad companies,
which fact they did not view with
complacency.
Passing from this point Commits
sioner Garfield takes up the question
of favoritism which he alleges has been
| shown by various railroad corporations
to the Standard Oil company The first
specific case of alleged discrimination
| to which he directs attention is in the
New England territory. It is charged
| that we formed monopoly in certain
parts Of that section because some of
the railroads there refused to prorate.
The man who could be deceived by such
a statement must be pretty dense.
First, if the New England roads ought
to prorate, but refuse to do so it must
occur to some one, somewhere that per-
haps the New England roads and not
the Standard Oil company are blame
able. Second, very casual inquiry
would show that the New England
roads are simply doing what they are
forced to do by natural conditions, and
that Mr.. Garfields attack to be effec-
tive, should be directed at Long Island
sound as a means of freight commune
cation. Obviously we have an advant-
age by the use of our own pipe lines
from the western oil fields to the coast
and the use of water transportation
thence to New England over any one
| who uses all rail transportation from
western points. But this advantage Is
/ one which it is not possible to correct
by any rate legislation unless it is
proposed to bankrupt the railroads In
order to meet water competition. Yet
we are not alone in this method of
transportation. Some of our competi-
tors do the same thing and deliver oil
at the points in.-New England that we
do by the same process.
mr. Garfield claims that the refusal
to prorate on the part Of the New Eng
land railroads has given the Standard
Oil company practically control Of New
England territory and enabled it to
maintain exorbitant prices for kero-
sene. Yet while it is admitted that
the New Haven road has recently be-
gun to prorate, this alleged condition
of control has not changed In any way
lnor have the prices Of kerosene been af-
fected. The New England roads be-
lieve they can make more money by a
refusal to prorate and if in doing SO
they are violating the proprieties, clear
ly they and not the Standard OIL conf
pany should be made the obpect Of at
tack.
1.-THE commissioner Is particularly I'M
fortunate on the subject Of rebates.
The public may well take his word that
he made an exhaustive examination
and yet withal he says that with one
or two exceptions the Investigations
of the bureau have as yet discovered no
rebates in the technical sense on inter-
state business. These exceptions We're
on business done wholly within the
state of California, over which, of
course, neither Mr.. Garfield's bureau
nor the interstate commerce commits
sion have any Jurisdiction But in
those cases the alleged rebates were
. fully explained to Mr.. Garfield and in
volved no turpitude, however. 1t was a
new business, of the Pacific coast and
before it had been systematized there
were overcharges, not to the Standard
Oil company alone but to everyone en-
gagged in the enterprise, which over
charges we're subsequently adjusted.
"He says the Standard Oil company
has habitually received from the rail-
roads and is now receiving secret
rates and other unjust and Illegal dis
ordinations. 1t is hardly fair or man.
ly for him to add the sentence: 'O1
course there may be other secret rates
which the bureau has not discovered
"In dealing with the discrlmina lions
which are alleged to be violations of the
Interstate commerce law the plain an
swer is that If Mr.. Garfelds state
ment is correct 1t was the duty Of the
Interstate commerce commission to
have taken action and brought NOD
alone the Standard Oil company but
the railway companies involved to book
and this they have never done. Viola
lions of the law in this respect do not
fall within the jurisdiction of the bu-
reau of corporations, and any state
ment on the part of Mr.. Garfield re-
specting this subject is gratuitous and
valueless.
Again, he has no control whatever
over state rates, which by the law are
put under the jurisdiction of the state
authorities and over which the bureau
of commerce nor the interstate COM
/ nnerce commission have any control
But with all this aside there have been
no secret rates nor unlawful discrim.
nations in the interest of the Standard
Oil company. Take the case of the
rate from Whiting to East st. Louis
upon which he lays so much stress
While discussing 1t at great length In
an important find he qualities and ex-
plains it all by the statement that
Whiting was a suburb of Chicago with
in the switching district of that city
and that all freight rates from Whiting
had for many years been the same as
those from Chicago.
This practice had obtained for TWEEN.
ty years and had applied to all kinds OF
merchandise and to say that a rate