New-York tribune., 1906-05-05
OIL MEMS DEFENCE.
Continued from hrst page.

Continued from hrst page.
Garheld's attack 20 be effective should be d.
rected at Long Island Sound as means Of
freight communication. Obviously, we have an
advantage by the use OF our own pipe lines from
the Western oil fields 20 the coast, 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 IL Is not possible to correct by any
rate legislation, unless Il ls proposed TO bankrupt
Yet we are not alone in this method OF trans
portaCiOn: some OF our competitors do the same
thing and deliver oil at the points in New Eng
land that we do by the same process.
Mr.. Garfield claims that the refusal TO pro-
rate on the part OF the New England railroads
has given the Standard OIL Company practical
control OF New England territory and enabled
1t to maintain exOrbitant prices for kerosene.
Yet. while 1t is admitted that the New Haven
condition Of control has not changed In any way,
nor have the prices OF kerosene been afreOtsd.
The New England roads believe that they can
make more money by a refusal % prOrate. and
IL In so doing they violating the prODrieties.
clearly they and not the Standard OIL Company
should be made the object Of attack.
GARFIELD WRONG ON REBATES.
The Commissioners is peculiarly unfortunate on
take his word that he made an exhaustive ex-
animation, and yet wtthal he says that with one
or two exceptions the Investigations OF the bu-
reau have as yet discovered no rebates In the
technical sense interstate business. These
exceptions were on business done wholly within
the State Of California, over which. OF course,
neither Mr.. GarheIds bureau nor the Interstate
Commerce Commission has any jurisdiction.
But in those cases the alleged rebates were fully
explained 20 1fr. Garfield, and involved no tur-
pitude whatever. It new business on the
Pacific Coast, and before II had been systena-
dard Oil Company alone, but to every one en-
gagged In the enterprise, which Overcharges were
subsequently adjusted.
He says the Standard OIL Company has habitl-
ally received from the railroads, and is now re-
ceiving, secret rates and other unjust and ille-
gal determinations. It is hardly fair or manly
for him to add the sentence: "Of course, there
not discovered"
In dealing with the Determinations which ars
alleged to be violations Of the Interstate Com
merce law, the plain answer is that, II Mr. Gar
fields statement is correct, IL was the duty Of
the Interstate Commerce Commission TO have
taken action and brought not alone the Standard
OIL Company. but the railway company involved.
to book and this they have never done. Viola
tions OF the law In this respect do not fan within
the Jurisdiction Of the Bureau Of Corporations,
and any statement on the part Of Mr.. Garfield
less
NO CONTROL OVER STATE RATES.
Again. he has no control whatever over state
rates, which by the law are put under the juriS-
diction Of the state authorities and over which
neither the Bureau OF Commerce nor the Inter-
But, all Of this aside, there have been no secret
rates nor unlawful discrimination in the inter
case OF rate from Whiting 70 East Sc. Louis,
upon which he lays much stress. While dis
cussing II at great length as an important "flnd.
he qualities and explains II all by the statement
that Whiting was 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.
This practice had obtained for twenty years
and had applied TO all kinds OF merchandise
ana TO say that a rate that had been used thus
freely and openly for that period by every one
was a secret rate Is manifestly unfair More
over, our OIL refinery Is the only one at Whiting
or within a hundred miles Of Il, so that this
sO-called discrimination clearly could not have
worked any harm 20 any competitor shipping
OIL from whiting or It's vicinity.
Mr.. Garleld's claim that by the usa Of low
interstate rates the Standard OH Company
gained an unfair advantage is equally unfOTtu-
nate. AT great expense we constructed pipelines
from the Pennsylvania and Ohio oil fields ana
from the Kansas and Indian Territory oil fields
same thing shall 1t be said that any one Is unfair
who does not give them the advantage OF this
enterprise OF ours? IL is quite true that, having
our OIL at Whiting and desiring 20 transport tt
to points in the interior OF Illinois. used the
state rates. 10 say that a man In Ohio who had
never expended dollar for a pipe line 20 Whit
ing should be able 20 transport his OF 20 an
inland town In Illinois over all-rail line at the
same rates that we enjoyed by reason OF our
pipe lines must appear absurd 20 any one. ARE
we 10 have no advantage because we construct
ed these pipe lines? Are the amount invested and
the interest on that investment 20 count for
nothing? Take two men going 20 Boston. one
uses an $1,000 automobile 20 go 70 New London,
and there taxes Vne tIall 10 4Lc 70 nave 40 9l~
vantage IN rate from the man who leaves New
York and travels all the way by raN2
PRIVATE CARS NO GREAT BOON.
The case OF a shipment from New York 90
Vermont. OF which mention Is made. % s1s-
ceptib!e ~ like explanation.
Respecting the use OF private cars. OF which
Mr.. Garheld makes much Il Is only necessary
90 make answer In his own words He says
tank cars in the petroleum OF trade the mileage
allowance or rental does not appear 90 result
owner.
It Is asserted over and over again IN tho re-
port that the Standard OF Company pFOfted
by secret" and unlawful" freight rates. Vet
In the same connection q IS admitted in the
report that all OF these rates are covered by tar
IFS flled with the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion precisely as the law provides. and there
fore cannot be either secret or "uRlawful"
The Commissioner uses the curious phFasa
at ono point in his report that. although q tar