The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1912-10-24

practically suHered the evils oTisinAi-
~ complained OF.
Colonel Roosevelt continued while
in Office and since to call attention to
the fact that the antitrust Law. while
effective TO dissolve a trust in form,
was not effective to remove the evils
from which the public suffered
President Taft was pledged 10 con-
tinue to urge for such amendments
to the antitrust law as Col Roose-
welt had advocated. but when he be-
came President he forgot his pledge
and failed to urge such reforms upon
Congress. Ever since, Colonel Roose-
welt has been urging, through inter-
views, newspaper and magazine arti-
cles, speeches, and otherwise, for an
effective amendment to the antitrust
law to give real relief to the public
/ that suffered from trust discrimina-
tons and expressions.
The platform on which Col Roose-
I welt is now running as the Progress
/ sive candidate for President declares
/ for such additional legislation, and
! the Colonel in every speech has
strongly urged the same as one OF the
greatest and most vital means for in
dustrial reform and justice.
/ Recently, Mr.. Wickersham, Presi-
dent Taft's Attorney-General, has
sent letters to a number of people
connected with the Tobacco Trust,
Standard Oil Trust, and other combi-
nations of capital prosecuted under
the antitrust law asking for their
prosecutions instituted by Col. Roose-
Welt and finished by President Taft
have been beneficial. This was done
clearly with view to getting mate
rial with which to reply to the argu-
ments of Colonel Roosevelt for addi-
tional effective legislation to correct
} the trust evil. So far, 1t seems that
the Attorney-Ge has received
but one letter, that he is willing to
: make public, and that was from an
officer of the Independent Oil Asso-
o;o 1,hi Y1noh die
eliminated against and oppressed by
} the Standard Oil Trust. That letter
is as follows:
Hon. George w. Wickersham,
j., Attorney-General,
Washington, D. C.
8 my Dear Sir:-I ain in re-
, ceipt of your letter of October 8,
in reply to which l would state
that it is not easy to draw
sharp line for the purposes of
y comparison between the condi-
tons of the oil business at the
date to which you refer, when
the Supreme Court decided the
L Standard Oil case in May, 1911,
: and the present time, because
y the effect of the Governments
prosecution of the Standard Oil
combination began practically
: with the filing of that suit in
II November, 1906; and from that
:. date the practices of the Stand
), ard Oil combination in large
measure ceased to be predatory,
and the Independent dealers be-
= gan to have chance to live.
d This condition continuously
: improved during the tendency
= Of the Governments suit, and
that Improvement has continued
since the decree of dissolution, so
II that it may be safely stated that
l. the giving of rebates upon which
J. the Standard Oil monopoly was
built up has ceased, preferen-
tial rates are few and far be-
q tween, disclosure of information
t by carriers of competitive ship
1t ments Is no longer practiced,
10 price-cutting below cost to kill
competition is rare, and many
other unethical commercial prac-
70 tees have become so infrequent
as hardly to cause complaint.
=, Now, however, the independent
manufacturer and refiner of oil
u is able to conduct his business
IN with fair share of profit reason
so ably due him, and without the
h. fearful handicap under which he
labored before the Governments
III suit was brought.
Controlled "a Per Cent.
"a I'm 1906 returns from the oil
industry show that the Standard
III Oil combination controlled about
p "a per cent of the entire oil bust
n ness Of the United States, and
n the remaining Is per cent was
distributed among the independ-