The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1922-06-18
Would InUite La Toilette
Cow,nitfee to Visit Tulsa

II has been suggested by some of
,be oil men that Senator La Toilette
ns Wisconsin be invited to visit Tulsa
Snd bring with him his. committee
which is TO investigate the oil busi-
rsss inasmuch as none of them
sme from states producing oil, nor
are likely to produce oil In the fu-
ture.
bo as impossible to show Mr.. La
Tolltte the hazard OF the oil busi-
ness as Il would TO show Campbell
Russell, who by the way much re-
ssmbles Mr.. La Toilette, that the
oil men are entitled to any con-
alteration whatever for the chances
they take and the hard times they
are so often called upon to endure.
There is none so blind as the one
who will not see, and when a man
is running for office and has antag-
onIzed ut least half of the voters In
hls state, Il is up to him to bring in
a report that will make It appear he
has accomplished something great
for the dear people of the state of
wisconsin and he is going to do 1t
and the chances are mighty good
that il will not be the big monopoly
tNa, is censured or made to suffer.
Is already being demonstrated
What is going to happen. For In
stance.
Standard officials are giving out
interviews quoting Edward Nord-
man, commissioner OF markets OF
the state or wisconsin, as saying
"It has come to my attention that
certain competitors OF the Standard
1tt n iy,o fnt '
and unwarranted use OF the depart
ment or markets decision in the
Standard Oil case. Those competi-
tors, II is reported are giving out the
impression that the Standard Oil
company is the only gasoline whole
saler In Wisconsin which has been
found guilty OF "rebating."
"such a representation is utterly
false. A half dozen OF the so-called
independent oil companies have
been engaged In an equal, IL not
worse, scheme of discrimination. In
deed, the practice OF rebating to
garage men in Wisconsin Is said tc
have originated with competitors OF
the Standard and not with the
Standard ITSELF"
Why Special Decision.
ut is true that special decision
was rendered by this department II
| the Standard OIL case, whereas al
other distributors are covered mere
ly by a general order which doe,
not name the offending parties spe
citically This singing out OF thu
Standard OIL company has, doubt
less been the thing which has op
Grated TO its detriment.
There was a reason. however. foI
making a special decision in the cas-
Of the standard Oil company. Tha
reason was not that the STANDARD
was doing more bla meworthy thing
N than its competitors. The sole caus
OF the special decision in the stand
ard Oil case is that that compan,
propounded, as a defense, lega
theory which seemed to call for al
analysis and for the placing OF tha
company under a special order.
refer to the fact that the Standarl
OIL company denied that It was dis
eliminating In price and assertc,
that the beneficiaries Of the allege
rebates were, in reality, its agent
whom It had a lawful right to ap
point and pay u compensation.
The Standard Oil decision deal!
primarily, with n u iscussiuu OF thi
lyal point That decision Is not
criticism OF the Standard Oil com
panys business methods. Such
special decision would not have bee
Used had it not seemed approprlat
to thoroughly consider this theor
OF agency which--on its face
placed the Standard OIL compan
der.
1T should he mentioned, In TIL
regard, that the contracts of SON
OF the so-caJled Independent o
companies show, in most bare tern
an intent TO discriminate and TO r,