The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-05-05

cern.
 When, however. he or Commissioner Garfield attacks the Standard Oil Com
 pany and uses it's methods of doing
 business as an object lesson for the
 purpose of promoting his views. We protest. It may be frankly stated at the outset that the Standard Oil Conn
 pany has at all times, within the limits
 of fairness and with due regard for the law, sought to secure the most ad- vantageous freight rates and routes
 possible. The question is whether we
 have at any point violated the law or the proprieties!
 The present inquiry grew out of a
 resolution adopted by Congress a year
 ago on motion of MT. Campbell of
 Kansas, instructing the Secretary of
 Commerce and Labor to investigate the oil business as carried on in this country. We welcome the investigation when Com missioner Garfield, in the discharge of bis duty, visited our of flee, he and his expert were given free access to our books and the fullest opportunity to ascertain the manner ir which our business was conducted. Made Frank Disclosures. Frank disclosures of all our methods were made and every crisicism of ferred by him was met with 2 candid and painstaking answer. So conscious WGIe we OI OuT TeClltuuc tHdl we EC- peatedly importuned MT. Garfield to make public the conditions existing in Kansas, but, he refused. We proposed ourselves to answer some of the unfair criticism upon the subject, but refrain ed on MT. Garfields advice and on his assurance that his report would pre- gent the case fairly. It turned out that so far as Kansas was concerned the State authorities abandoned their
 attack.
 One does not care to bandy words
 with the President of the United States It is not easy to differentiate between Mir. Roosevelt, the President, and MT Roosevelt, the individual He has given of his advice most generously on every subject from the size of our families to
 mistakes of federal judges and some err TOT is inevitable now and then to the | most conservative under such circum- stances.
 we say flatly that any assertion l that the Standard. oil Company hal been or is now knowingly engaged IT | practices which are unlawful is alike | untruthful and unjust. The commits l sioners report upon which the presi. dents message is based opens with l the statement that the manufacturers | of refined oil in this country is about | 25,000,000 barrels annually. It Is un- important but 1t would nevertheless | have been fair for him to have stated | that over 15,000,000 barrels of this an
 nual manufacture Is exported and with | it's manufacture or the price, the Amer ican public is not concerned.
 He next calls attention to the fact that the Standard oil Refineries are | located at centers of distributior while the Independent Refinefies ara usually in the crude oil fields. Thif | fact if borne in mind will answer very many of the criticisms fhieh he latel | indu1ges in. He charges that this To- | cation of refineries and the natura | advantages following it were obtain ed by means of unfair competitive methods but beyond this assertion doei | these alleged unfair methods at all | He says the Development of the Pipe | Line System Of the Standard Oil Com. | paay was the result of special agree
 ment with the railroad company. Gnrffelds Meaning Not Clear. What he can mean is past our com | prehension. As & matter of fact, tn, | development of the pipe line system b. the Standard Oil Company was in tn,
 face of violent hostility On the part oi | the railroads, which naturally wer, opposed to the introduction of sucl means of transportation.
 At enormous cost, and in the fact ! of steadfast railway opposition, at ar early date, the Standard oil Company
 adopted the pipe line method for han I ding crude petroleum. The first lin' was extended from the Western Penn. sylvania oil fields to Bergen, a point | on the Atlantic coast. This line di- verted an enormous amount of freigh from the railway companies, which
 fact they did not view with compla- cency.
 Passing from this point, Commits sioner Garfield takes up the question of favoritism which be alleges has been | shown by various railroad corpora
 tions to the Standard oil Company The first specific case of alleged dis crinination to which he directs atten- | ton is in the New England territory
 It is charged that we enjoy monopoly | in certain parts of that section because some of the railroads there refuse tC | pro rate. The man who could be de- | ceived by such a statement must bt
 pretty dense.
 First. if the New England roads [ ought to porate but refused to do so II
 must occur to some one, some where, that perhaps the New England roads
 and not the Standard Oil Company are , blamable, second, very casual in- quiry would show that the New Eng
 land roads are simply doing what they are forced to do by natural condi-
 tions, and that Mir. Garfield's attack
 to be effective should be directed al
 Long Island Sound as a means of
 freight communication. Obviously we
 have an advantage by the use of ouI
 own pipe lines from the western oil
 fields to the coast and the use of wa
 ter transportation thence to New Eng land 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
 bankrupt the railroads in order to
 meet water competition. Yet we are
 not alone in this method of transpor-
 tation. Some of our competitors do the | same thing.
 Railroads, Not Standard,
 MT Garfield claims that the re.
 fusal to pro rate on the part of New
 England railroads has given the stand.
 ard oil Company practical control, ot
 the New Englnad territory and enahIed
 1t to maintain exorbttant prices fo,
 kerosene. Yet while 1t is admJtfed
 that the New Haven road has recently