The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-05-05
Standard Oil Company Replies
to President Roosevelt.
Points to Kansas as AfEording
Evidence of Its Rectitude.
EXECUTIVE ADVICE.
Officials Say Has Been Given on
So Many Subjects
That an Error Is Inevitable
Now and Then.

New York. May Sin reply to Presi-
dent Roosevelt's message and the re-
port of Commissioner Garfield, Messrs.
H. H. Rogers and John D. ArchiboId, of
the Standard Oil company, said that
their examination of the message and
report had necessarily been a hurried
one. and that they should at a later
date make a full answer to sheir share
holders. Meanwhile they made the fol-
lowing statement to the Associated
Press:
I'm the presidents effort to secure
the passage of a bill charging the pow
ers of the : eerstate commerce commits
sion and just and equitable railway
rates we have precisely the same in
/ terest that any good citizen has. NO
more and 20 less. Regarding his crit
icisms upon the management Of the
railways, or his structures upon any
acts of the interstate commerce commits
sion, we have neither responsibility nor
/ concern. When. however, he OF Com
missioner Garfield attacks the Standard
/ Oil company. and uses its methods Of
/ doing business as an object lesson for
4 the purpose of promoting his views, we
I protest. It may be frankly stated at
the outset that the Standard Oil com
pany has at all times within the limits
of fairness and with due regard for the
law, sought to sc sure the most advan-
1 tageo--s freight rates and routes posi-
bic. There will be no denial of this fact
on our part The question is whether
we haze at any point violated the law
or the proprieties.
Welcome Investigation, They Say.
The present inquiry grew out Of a
resolution adopted by congress year
/ ago motion of r1r. Campbell Of KAN
sas, instructing the secretary of com
merce and labor to investigate the oil
business as carried on in this country.
We welcomed the investigation. When
Con Missioner Garfield in the discharge
of his duty visited our office he and his
experts - give free access to our
| books and the fullest opportunity to
ascertain the manner in which our bust
ness was conducted. Frank disclosures
of all our r thodS were made and every
criticism offered by him was met with
Il a candid and painstaking answer.
80 conscious were We Of our recti-
tude that we repeatedly importuned
Mr.. Gar4eld to make public the condi-
lions existing IN Kansas. but he refused.
We proposed ourselves to answer some
of the unfair criticism upon the subject,
but refrained on Mr.. Garheld's advice,
and en- his assurance that his report
wouls present the case fairly. It turn
ed out that so far as Kansas was con-
cerned the state authorities abandoned
their attack
"One does not care to handy words
with the president of the United States.
It is not easy TO di-ferentiate betweet
Roosevelt, the individual. He has given
of his advice most generously on every
subject, from the size of our families
tc the mistakes of federal judges. and
some error is inevitable now and then
to the most conservative man under
such circumstances.
UntruthfuI and Unjust
1--WE say fatty that any assertion that
the Standard Oil company has been or
is now knowingly engaged in practices
and unjust
The commissioners report. upon
which the presidents message is based,
opens with the statement that the man
ufacture of refined oil in this country
is about 26.00O,000 barrels annually It
is unimportant. but it would neverthe-
less have been fair for him to have
stated that over $1,000, 900 barrels Of
this annual manufacture is exported,
and with its manufacture or the price
| the American public is not concerned.
He next calls attention to the fact
I that the Standard Oil redneries are To-
Gated at centers of distribution, while
the Independent refineries are usually
in the crude oil fields This fact IL
borne steadily in mind will answer
very many of the criticisms which
he later INDUCES in He charges
that this location of refneries and the
natural advantages following II we're
obtained by means of unfair competi-
tive methods, but beyond this mere as
sertion does not enter into history or
explanation of these alleged nfair
methods at all. He says the develop
ment 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 compreh ension. AS a matter OF
fact. the development of the pipe line
system by the Standard Oil company
was in the face of violent hostilittes on
the part of the railroads. which nat
uraIIy were opposed to the Introduction
of such means of transportation. At
enormous cost, and in the face Of
steadfast railway opposition at an early
date, the Standard Oil company adopt
ed the pipe line methods for handling
crude petroleum The first line was ex-
tended from the western Pennsylvania
oil fields to Bergen Point, on the Allan
tic coast. This line diverted an enor-
nous amount of freight from the rail-
way companies. which fact they did
not view with complacency.
AS to Discrimination.
Passing from this point. Commits
sfoner Garfield takes up the question Of
fayoritism which he alleges has been
shown by various railroad corporations
TO the Standard Oil company. The first
specific case of alleged discrimination
to which he directs attention is in the
that we enjoy a monopoly in certain
parts of that section because some of
the railroads there refuse to prorate.
The man who could be deceived by
such a statement must be pretty dense.
First, if the New England roads ought
to prorate, but refuse to do 50, It must
occur to someone, somewhere that per-
haps the New England roads and not
the Standard Oil company are blama-
bic. Second, a very casual inquiry
would show that the New England
roads are simply doing what they are
forced to do by natural conditions. and