Morris tribune., 1907-10-05
HEARING is RESUMED.
Question Of Railroad Lubricating OIL
Taken Up.


New York, Oct. 4.-When the hear
ing of the federal suit for the dissolu-
ton of the Standard Oil company Of
New Jersey was resumed evidence
was adduced which Frank B. Kellogg,
conducting tho governments case,
said he believes proves the contention
Of the government that the Oil COM
bine, Through its subsidiaries, the Ga
Iona Signal Oil scolnpany and: the Wa
ters-Pierce OIL company, have a mo-
nopoly Of the railroad lubricating oil
business and that it not only charges
an excessive price but that it dis
eliminates against certain railroads in
the prices charged for its product.
The Standard manufactures engine,
valve, car and coach oil and Mr.. KEEL
loag said he would show that it con-
trolled 81 per cent of the business.
c. N. Steinbrenner, auditor of the
railway department of the Galena Sig
nal Oil company, was the first witness
called. He said that the only COM
panies which he knew sold 'lubricating
oils to railroads were the Galena Sig
nal Oil company and the Waters-Pierce
Oil company.
Mr.. Kellogg then read a letter from
Charles Miller, president of the Galena
Signal Oil company, written on Feb.
%, 1905, to D. D. Marony, vice presi-
dent of the Pittsburg, Shawmut and
Northern railroad, in which Mr.. KEEL
logg stated that the Galena Signal Oil
company was supplying 9711 per cent
of the total railway mileage Of the
United States, Canada and Mexico
with lubricating oil.
Mr.. Steinbrenner said that he
thought the Galena company supplied
about 95 per cent Of the total railway
mileage. Contracts between the Bal
timore and Ohio railroad and other
railroads with the Galena Signal Oil
company were placed in evidence,
showing the price charged for various
kinds of oil.
Provision Had No Effect.
Mr.. Kellogg called the attention of
the witness to clause In the contract
stating that if Franklin crude oil de-
clined Is cents below $500 barrel
reduction would be made to the rail-
roads.
The witness said no such reduction
had been made during the fourteen
years of his connection with the Ga
lena Signal Oil company. Mr.. Kellogg
asked if it were not a fact that Frank
lin crude oil is not the basis for the
manufacture of lubricating oil, but the
witness said he did not know.
The Galena company, he said, sells
between 100000 and coo, 900 barrels of
lubricating oil each year.
Don't you Know that the output of
Franklin crude oil is only 10000 bar
rels a year," asked Mr.. kellogg.
The witness said he did not.
Mr.. Kellogg called attention to the
clause in the Galena company's con-
tract with the railroads by which a
refund was to be allowed the roads in
case the cost of locomotive oil ex-
ceeded $1.75 per 1000 miles. Mr..
Steinbrenner said that under this
clause the Galena refunded to the
Pennsylvania railroad lines east Of
Pittsburg about A per cent and on
the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chi
cago line about so per cent on its pur-
chases of lubricating oil.
Mr.. Kellogg sought to spread upon
the record and make public list OF
settlements with railroads for lubricat-
ing oil. The counsel for the defend
ants objected. to making the record
public, which, they claimed, would lay
open their business to those who had
no right to it.
The statements were finally placed
in evidence. They showed the settle
ments made with about eighty rail
roads by the Galena company for lu-
bricating oils for a period of years.