The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1908-11-21
ted Pipe Line company" asked


.fMr. Cassatt may have testified to
these rebates / do not know about 1T,
as l had nothing to do with the pay
ment. This was y number or. years
after I had retired from participation
in freight arrangements.
Mr.. Rockefeller said he signed the
agreements by which the suit was dis
missed. but did not recall the details,
although he remembered there was some
trouble about freight rates.
Mr.. Kellogg then read the testimony OF
\. !, Cassatt in a case brought by tho
stntc Of Pennsylvania against the Penn
sylvan!a railroad. in which Mr.. Cassatt
said that the PENNSYLVANIA agreed TO pay
the 10 per cent rebate TO the Standard
because It might divert its trade to other
lines. Mr.. Rockefeller said he did not
recall MIR Cassatt's testimony, nor did
he remember the construction OF an m
dependent pipe line for those refiners
who were unable TO obtain tho samo rate
from the Pennsylvania railroad as did
the Standard .
'Do YOU mean to say that you don't
recall the suit against your company for
receiving rebatcs?'
Il may have had the knowledge at the
time"
Terminal Agreement.
Mr.. kellogg then called tho witnesses
attention TO terminal agreement by
which he said the Standard obtained the
use of the terminals of the Erie ana New
York Central railroads. ana whicn he salol
provided that all the oil transported Dy
any person over The New York Central
railroad could be delivered TO the termi-
mails provided by the STANDARD at Hunt
cr'S Point.
Mr.. kellogg asked ir warehouse charges
were made against the independent oil
retiners at these terminals.
Mr., Rockefeller said they wero madS.
He did moi recall whether the other rail-
roads paid tho New York Central GER
tain percentage for wdrchouslnS The OH
they carried.
feller said he could not recall whether
the Standard Oil company controlled tho
National Storage company, which was inc
terminal of the PENNSYLVANIA railroad, or
whether no used these oil terminals from
1875 TO 1881. He could not state how long
the Standard controlled the terminals OF
the Erie and New York Central roads.
He said he was in tho cast and that was
''Did not the STANDARD make tho ter
mlnal rate which was charged to the
indepcndentS?'
''They were charged fair warehouse
rates, as provided in tho agreement
Evades Direct Answer.
But YOU controlled all the terminals
and made sill the rates?"
I'VE would not have been so unWise as
to charge them more than n fair rate;
The witness said that ho had 10 doubt
that the Independent companies had 9TH
or terminals In New York than those
controlled by the Standard OIL company,
But YOU assessed tho warehouse and
dents using your terminals
Probably We did
Mr.. kellogg asked whether the Stan
dard did not buy twenty Independent re
nneries prior to 1874 and dismantle many
OF them.
"I should think hardly as many as
that. We used the best OF the reiineries
and dismantled the others said Mr..
Rockefeller.
lie said that the Standard had little
20 say about the South Improvement
company, but participated In the meeting
when 1t was organized. He did not think
it was organized before he had purchased
any renneries In Cleveland. and he said
he did not think that all OF the stock
in that company was acquired by mon
who were later associated with him Mr..
Kellogg then read the list of stockhold-
ers of the South Improvement company
and asked Mr., Rockefeller about tho agi-
tatIon which followed the organization of
this company.
Cannot Explain.
II can hardly explain the reason for
the excitement Of those gentlemen re-
piled Mr.. Rockefeller.
WAS 1t not the enormous rebates that
the railroads were 10 pay
''It was probably due to misapprehen-
sion on the part OF the independent ship
pcrs."
Mr.. Rockefeuer's attention was called
provemcnL company and the rates proVid-
cd therein for rebates on oil.
lis it not fact that all other par
ties according 10 this agreement were
to be charged the full gross ratc?"
probably SO"
''Was IL not that feature that created
the excitement among the independents?"
lit might have been ONE OF the causes,
but ! could hardly Tecollcct after forty
years, all the causes
you say the Standard did not agree
with the propositions of the South I'm
provement company. but is IT not fact
that the Standard Oil signed manifesto
supporting the South Improvement COM
pany2'
Recollection Is Poor.
ut may have been. l rather think 1t
must have been the Standard Oil COM
pany of PittsbUYg. / have no recollection
Of the STANDARD OIL company of Cleve-
land signing it.
Were you d stockholder OF the South
Improvement company
81 never received the certificates, as
far as l can recollect.'
do you remember that in March, 1872,
there was u Standard Oil company Of
Plttsburg?"
Il think so. think that it was a liv-
ing concern"
''Would It be natural that a company
Ike yours would join In the manifesto2"
"Wel It is likely that Mr., Warden,
who had many interests in the region,
would have Issued the circular"
What understanding did you have Of
the agreement?
1 should say that the agreement would
have been TO help the business of the
producer, reflner and transporter"
THAT is, all who came in would profit,
but how about those who did not come
ln?"
"The doors were open"
How did you know the doors were
open?"
"That was the theory OF the gentle
men who organized, All tho refiners were
expected TO come into It,"
what communication was made to the
Independents that they could come into
this agreement?'
81 could not say"
WAS not the contract kept secret for
some time?"
1T may have been"
Mn Rockefeller said the plan was quick
" abandoned He said he did not know
whether the independent retlners in Cleve-
land were asked to come In.
Did you inform the independents whom
You bought out that they might have the
benefit OF this agreement"
AZ don't recall. AS matter Of fact,
did not believe in this thing.
How did the independent refiners
whom you bought out know that they
might have had the benefit OF this agree
l