The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-11-16


 the same distances, than the rates from Toledo, Cleveland and Flndlay. T the independent points. As an instance of said discrimlnations, of which many are stated in the petition, the rate from Whiting (the Standard shipping point) to Battle Creek. I63 miles, was 8 1-2 cents; from Toledo Gan indepen- 113 miles, 10 12 cents. Similar dis criminations existed to all of the Michigan points.
 | Control of RalIroads. | It is alleged that the railroads of the United States have uniformly es- tablished system of rates on petro- leum and its products by which the rates from the several shipping points of the Standard oil Company have been relatively lower than the rates from competitive points.
 That such system of discrimination has been obtained through the owner ship and influence of the individual defendants, and others acting in their interest, fin the various railroads of the United States. and ky reason of the fact That they were enabled to give such, railroads large traffic or to take such traffic away from them In the event the rates were not satisfactory.
 It Is alleged that the individual de- fendants and other individuals asso-
 
 them in the Standard oil Trust and the Standard oil Company and its sub sidiary corporations, have purchased and acquired large interests in the stocks of the principal railroads of the United States, and have caused them selves to be elected. or have caused persons acting in their interest to be directors of such railroads, and have influenced said railroads to establish and maintain said discriminatory rates. Among other railroads in which the defendants are interested, are the following.
 Villain Rockefeller. director in Central New England Railway Com ,pany: Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company; Delaware, Lacka- wanna and , Western Railroad Com pany; Lake Shore and Michigan South ern Railway Company; Michigan Gen. tral Railroad Company; New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company; New York. Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company; New York. New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company; New York, Ontario and Wes- tern Railway Company; New York and Ottawa Railway Company; Pittsburg and Lake Erie Railroad Company; Rutland Railroad Company.
 Henry H. Rogers. director in Atch- ison. Topeka and santa Fe Railway Company; Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, and Union Pacific Railroad Company.
 Charles M. Pratt, director in Bos- ton and Maine Railroad Company;
 Charles M. Pratt, director in Evans. ville and Terre Haute Railroad Com pany; Long Island Railroad Company.
 Henry M. Flagler, director in Florida East Coast Railway Company.
 n pnnkafnllar Tr Hfrarfrpi 4a Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company; Missouri Pacific Railway Company.
 William G. Rockefeller, director in Union Pacific Railroad Company.
 fl. Clay Pierce, director in Kansas City Southern Railway Company; St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company.
 c. W. Hardness. director in Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Com pany.
 r. T. Gates, director in Missouri Pa- ciflc Railway Company; Wisconsin Central Railway Company.
 Monopoly of Oils.
 It is alleged that by reason of the influence of the defendants over the railroads, and the large tonnage which the defendant companies Ire able to control, the Standard oil Company sells substantially all of the lubricat- ing oils to the railroads of the United States. amounting to exceeding s. 100000 per annum; that ',y reason of it's monopoly of this business 1t charg- es same railroads higher prices than others; that the nominal or invoicA price charged nearly all the railroads is the same, but the actual price is determined by certain guarantees, and that as a matter of fact there is a wide discrimination between railroads, the prices varying from fifty per cent. of invoice price to the full invoice price: that in nearly all cases the prices charged to railroads are excessive and unreasonable, being from fifty to 100 per cent. more than the price at which other manufacturers are willing to sell the same, and that the railroads are willing to and do pay these ex- cessive charges as a condition of se- curing shipments of traffic in petro- leum and its products; and that the said excessive prices have been sub- stantially the payments of rebates to the Standard oil Company.
 It Is alleged the Standard oil Com pany has been enabled to restrain and mOnopollze commerce, by unfair methods of competition. Among oth' CTS named in the bill are the follow ing:
 Where an independent dealer, re- finer, or jobber of petroleum or It's products has sold or attempted to sell in any community, the Standard would cut the price below the cost to such independent, and in many instances below the cost to the Standard Com pany until the competitor was driven out of business, when the price would be raised: and that all over the Uni ted States wherever no competition exists, the Standard has charged very much higher prices.
 Another means of unfair competi- tion used by the Standard Oil Company was to obtain from railroads and rail- road employees full reports of the shipments of competitors, whereupor the Standard oil Company would go into the community and cut the pric" below that of the competitor.
 Another instance of such unfair Is by companies neld out by the Standard to be independent, while in truth and in fact the Standard owned them. Such companies would uniformly sell to the customers of the and not to the customers of the Standard and would cut the prices. Many of such companies were mere names and not corporations.
 Payment of Rebates.