The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1906-05-05
ROGERS REPLIES
TO PRESIDENT
Continued from First Pase)

| 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
| 1t Is not possible to correct by any rate
legislation unless 1t is proposed to bank
rupt the railroads in order to meet water
1 competition. Yet we are not alone in this
method of transportation. Some of our
competitors do the same thing.
GarfieId's Claim.
'sMr Garfield claims that the refusal
to prorate on the part of New England
railroads has given the Standard Oil COM
pany practical control of the New Eng
land territory. and enabled it to maintain
exorbitant prices for kerosene. Yet while
| 1t is admitted that the New Haven road
has recently begun to prorate, this al
| legged condition of control has not changed
in any way nor have the prices of kero-
sene been affected. The New England
roads believe they can make more money
| by a refusal to prorate, and If in so doing
| they are violating the proprieties, clear
| ly they and not the Standard Oil COM
pany should be made the object of at
tack.
1.-THE commissioner is peculiarly unfor-
tunate on the subject of rebates The
| public may well take his word that he
made an exhaustive examination, and yet
|
| ceptions the Investigations of the bureau
| have as yet discovered no rebates in
| the technical sense on Interstate business
| These exceptions were on business done
| wholly within the state of California, over
| which of course neither Mr.. Garfields
| bureau nor the interstate commerce COM
| mission have any Jurisdiction. But In
those cases the alleged rebates were fully
| explained to Mr. Garfield, and involved
no turpitude whatever 1t was a new
business on the Pacific coast and before
1t had been systematized, there were
overcharges not to the Standard Oil com
pany alone, but to every one engaged in
the enterprise which overcharges were
subsequently adjusted.
Secret Rate.
'IIe SAWS the Standard Oil company
has habitually received from the railroads
and is now receiving secret rates, and
other unjust and illegal determinations.
| 1t is hardly fair or manly for him to
| add the sentence: or course there may be
other secret rates which the bureau has
not discovered
I'm dealing with the determinations
which are alleged to be violations of the
interstate commerce law, the plain an
swer is that II Mr.. Garfields statement
is correct, 1t was the duty of the inter-
| commerce
action and brought not alone the Standard
oil company. but the railway companies
involved to book and this they have
never done Violations of the law In this
respect do not fall within the jurisdiction
of the bureau of corporations, and any
statement on the part of Mr.. GARFIELD
respecting this subject Is gratuitious and
valueless.
again he has no control whatever over
state rates which by the law are put
under the jurisdiction of the state au-
thorities. and over which the bureau or
commerce, nor the inter state commerce
commission, have no control. But all of
this aside, there have been no secret
rates nor unlawful Determinations In
the interest of the Standard Oil COM
pany Take the case of the rate from
Whiting to East st. Louis upon which
he laws so much stress. While discussing
n at great length as an important ind
he Qualities and explains 1t all by the
statement that Whiting was a suburb
Of Chicago. within the switching district
of that city, and that all freight rates
from Whiting had for many years been
the same as those from Chicago.
The Whiting Rate.
This practice had obtained for twenty
years. and had applied to all kinds or
| m
had been used thus freely and openly for
that period by every one was secret
rate Is manifestly unfair. Moreover, our
oiI refinery Is the only one at Whiting
or within 100 miles of It. so that the So
called discrimination clearly could not
have worked any harm to any competitor
sh;nning oil from Whiting, or its vicinity.
"Mr. Garfield's claim that by the use
NJ low interstate rates the Standard Oil
comnany gained an unfair advantage, Is
eo,,al1y unfair At great expense we con-
structed pipe lines from the PENNSYLVANIA
and Ohio oil fields, and from the Kansas
and Indian Territory fields to Whiting. II
our competitors did not do the same thing
should II be said that any one is unfair
who does not give them the advantage
of this enterprise of ours? 1t Is quite true
that having our oil at Whiting and de-
string to transport it to points In the
interior of Illinois, we used the state
rates To say that a man in Ohio who had
never expended dollar for a pipe line
to Whiting should be able to transport
his oil to an inland town In Illinois over
an all-rail line at the same rates that
we enjoyed by reason of our pipe lnes'
must appear absurd to any one. Are we
to have no advantages because we con-
structed these pipe lines? Is the amount
inv ested. and the interest on that invest
ment to count for nothing? Take two
men going to Boston, one uses an $4,000
automobile to go TO New London, and
there takes the train. Is he to have no ad-
vantage In rate from the man who leaves
New York and travels all the way by
rail?
1.-THE case OF a shipment from New
York to Vermont of which mention Is
made is susceptible of like explanation.
Private Cars.
Prospecting the use of private cars Of
Nf. eel II vr1tIrs
necessary to make answer In his own
words. He says that owing to the rela-
lively slow movement of tank cars In
the petroleum oil trade. the mileage al
lowance of rental does not appear to re-
suit in an excessive profit to the private
tank car owner.
at is asserted over and over again in
the report that the Standard Oil company
profited by secret and unlawful freight
rates. Yet in the same connection 1t Is
admitted in the report that all of u
rates are covered by tarlffs filed at the