The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-05-05
HIGHS BACk.
CONTINUED from Page i

tive should be directed at Long Is
/ land Sound as a means of freleht COM
advantage by the use OF our own pipe
lines from the western oil fields to the
/ coast and the use of water tTanspor-
/ tatiOn thence to New England over any
I one who uses al rail transportation
from western points. But this advan-
tage is one which it is not possible to
/ correct by any rate legislation unless
I 1t IS proposed TO bankrupt the railroads
I in order to meet water competition.
Yet We are not alone in this method of
/ transportation. Some of our competi-
4 tors do the same thing and deliver oil
at the points in New England that we
4 do by the same process.
Mr. Garfield claims that the refusal
/ 10 prorate on the part of the New Eng
/ land railroads has given the Standard
I Oil company practical control of New
England territory and enabled it to
maintain exorbitant prices for kerosene
let While it is admitted that the New
4 Haven road has recently begun to pro-
rate, this alleged condition of control
/ has not changed to any way, nor have
/ the prices of kerosene 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 clearly they
and not the Standard Oil company
should be made the object of attack
Criticize Garfield.
1.-THE commissioner is peculiarly I'M
fortunate on the subject of rebates.
! The public may we'll take his word
! that he made an exhaustive examina-
ton, and yet withal he says that with
one or two exceptions the investiga-
/ tiOns of the bureau have as yet dis
| covered no rebates in the technical
sense on interstate business These
I exceptions were on business done
4 wholly within the state of California,
/ over which, of course neither Mr..
! Garfield's bureau nor the interstate
! f.c 81
/ diction. But in those cases the al
/ legged rebates were fully explained to
| Mr. Garfield and involved no turpitude
| whatever. 1t was a new business on
/ the Pacific coast and before it had
I been systematized there were over
charges not to the Standard Oil COM
/ pany alone but to everyone engaged in
! the enterprise, which overcharges were
4 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
examinations. It is hardly fair or
manly for him to add the sentence of
course there may be other secret rates
\ which the bureau has not discovered
In dealing with the determinations
which are alleged to be violations of
/ the interstate commerce law the plain
answer is that if Mr.. Garfields state
/ ment is correct 1t was the duty of the
interstate commerce commission to
/
alone the Standard OIL company, but
1 the railway companies Involved, to
4 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 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 law are
Z of en Gf1 fa
authorities and over which the bu-
reau Of commerce nor the interstate
I commerce commission have any con-
troll But. all of this aside there have
been no secret rates or unlawful dis
examinations in interest of this. Stand
ard Oil company. Take the case Of
the rate from Whiting to East St
Louis, upon which he lays so much
stress. While discussing it at great
length as an important find he quail
fies and explains It all by the state
ment that Whiting was a suburb of
/ Chicago, within the switching dis
trict' of that city. and that all freight
rates from Whiting had for many
years been the same as those from
Chicago.
Is an Old Practice.
This practice had obtained for 20
years and had applied to all kinds of
merchandise and to say that a rate
that had been used thus freely and
openly for that period by everyone was
| a secret rate is manifestly unfair.
Moreover. our oil 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 shipping oil
from Whiting or its vicinity
Mr.. Garfield's claim that by the use
of low intra-state rates the Standard
Oil company gained an unfair advant-
age is equally unfortunate. At great
expense we constructed pipe lines
from the Pennsylvania and Ohio oil
fields, and from the Kansas and In
dian Territory fields to Whiting. If
our competitors did not do the same
thing shall it be said that anyone is
unfair who does not give them the
advantage Of this enterprise of ours
It is quite true that having our oil
at Whiting and desiring to transport
it to points in the interior of Illinois
we used the state rates. To say that
q man in Ohio who had never ex-
pended a 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 lines
must appear absurd to anyone. Are
we to have no advantage because we
constructed these pipe lines2 Is the
amount invested and the interest on
that investment 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 advantage on
the rates from the man who leaves
New York and travels all the way by
rail? The case of a shipment from
New York to Vermont of which men
ton is made, is susceptible of like ex-
PLANTATION.
Respecting the use of private cars
Of which Mr.. Garfield makes much, il
is only necessary to make answer in his
own words. He says that owing to the
relatively slow movement of tank cars
in the petroleum oil trade, the mileage
allowance of rental does not appear te
result in an excessive profit to the pri-
vate tank car owner.
s.Secret Rates.
1T is asserted over and over again
in the report that the Standard OF