The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-05-05

dent Roosevelts message and the report
| OF Commissioner Garfield. Messrs H. H.
Rogers and John d. Archbold of the
Standard OIL company said that their ex-
animation of the message and report had
necessarily been a hurried one and that
they should at later date make full
answer TO their shareholders Meanwhile
they made the following statement to the
| Associated Press:
Has Interest With Citizens.
'In the Presidents eIlort to secure the
passage OF bill enlarSlng the powers OF
the Interstate Commerce commission and
just and equitable railway rates VIC have
Preciselv the samo interest that any good
citizen has. No more and no less. Re
gardlng his criticisms upon the manage
ment of the railways. or his structures
upon any acts OF the Interstate Com
merce commission. we have neither re.
sponsibllity nor concern.
Ready to Protest
When, however, he or Commissioners
Garfield attacks the Standard OIL COM
pany and uses its methods OF doing busi-
ness as an object lesson for the purpose
Of promoting his views. We protest 1t
may be frankly stated al the outset that
the Standard oil company has at all
times within the limits OF fairness and
cure the most advantageous freight rates
and routes possible. There Will be no
Genial OF this fact on our part. The ques-
tion is whether have at any point yio-
lated the law or the proprieties.
Welcomed Investigation.
The present inquiry grew out of
resolution adopted by Congress a year
ago. on motion of Mr., Campbell of Kan
sas. instructing the Secretary of Com
merce and Labor to investigate the oil
We welcomed the investigation. When
Commissioner Garfield, In the discharge
of his duty, visited our offices he and
his experts were given free access TO our
books and the fullest opportunity to as
certain the manner In which our business
was conducted. Frank disclosures Of all
our methods were made, and every criti-
cism offered by him was met with can
did and painstaking answer.
Says Garfield Refused.
$50 conscious were we OF our rectitude
that repeatedly lmportuned Mr.. Gar
field TO make public the conditions exist
ing in Kansas but he refused. We pro-
posed ourselves TO answer some OF the
unfair criticism upon the subject. but
Trained on Mr.. Garflelds advice and on
his assurance that his report would pre-
sent tho case fairly. 1t turned out that
go far as Kansas was concerned the State
authorities abandoned their attack.
Discrepancy in Report.
The Commissioners report. upon which
the Presidents message Is based, opens
with the statement that the manufacture
of refined oil in this country is about
100000 barrels annually. IT is unimpor-
tant, but II would nevertheless have been
fair for him TO have stated that over ff-
teen millions of barrels of this annual
manufacture is exported. and with Its
manufacture or the prico the American
public Is not concerned.
AS to the Location
He next calls attention TO the fact that
the Standard OH refineries are located at
centers OF distribution, while the inde-
pendent refneries are usually In the crude
oil fields. This fact II borne steadily In
mind will answer very many or the crltt-
clsms which he later indulges In. The
charges are that this location OF refn-
cries and the natural advantages follow
Ing II were obtained by means OF unfair
competitive methods. but beyond this
mere assertion does not go into history
or explanation OF these alleged unfair
methods at all
Opposed to Pipe Lines.
He says the development OF the pipe
line system by the Standard OIL company
was the result OF special agreement with
the railroad companies What he can
mean is past our comprehension AS
matter of fact. the development OF the
pipe line system by the Standard on
Company WAS I'm the face of violent hostil-
tiles on the part of the railroads, which
naturally We're opposed to tho lntroduc-
enormous cost and In the face OF stead
fast railway opposition. at an early date
the Standard Oil company adopted the
pipe line met hodS for handling crude pc
troleum. The first line was extended from
the western PENNSYLVANIA oil fields 10
Bergen Point on the Atlantic coast This
freight from the railway companies
which fact they did not view with COM
placency.
Denies Alleged Monopoly.
Passing from this point, Commissioners
GARFIELD takes up the question of favor
Itism which he alleges has been shown
by various railroad corporations 10 the
Standard OF company. The first speclhc
case of alleged discrimination 10 Which
he directs attention is In the New hns
o nd territory. 1t Is charged that we en-
JOY q monopoly in certain parts OF thst
section because some OF the ralIrosus
there refuse to pro rate. The man e VINO
could be deceived by such statement
must be pretty dense
Would Blame Roads.
First. II the New England roads ought
20 pro rate, but refuse to do so. II must
,ccur to some ono somewhere that per
1aps the New England roads and not the
oil company are blamaple- sec
md a very casual Inquiry would show
hat the New England roads are simply
lolng what they are forced TO DO 0y ma,
Iral conditions and that Mr.. Garheld at
ack to be effective. should be directed
Il Long Island sound as means or
reight communication.
Have One Advantage.
OBVIOUSLY we have an advantage pE
he use OF our own pipe lines from IN"
Western oil fields to the coast. ana 10
bc usc OF water transportation To New
over any ono who uses all RAJ,
from Western points. But
his advantage Is one which " is ~
cesibIc to correct by any rate leklslH-
lon unless 1T is proposed TO bankrupt ,n'
ailroads In order to meet water con-
ctitIon Yet we are not alone IN thls
1ethod OF transportation. Some OF 2nr
ompetitors do the same thing and