Another route was arranged which for a time promised success. This was to bring crude oil by barges to Pittsburg, then to carry the refined down the Ohio River to Huntington and thence by the Richmond and Chesapeake road to Richmond. This scheme, started in February, was well under way by May, and "On to Richmond!" was the cry of the independents. Everything possible was done to make this attempt fail. An effort was even made to prevent the barges which came down the Allegheny River from unloading, and this actually succeeded for some time. There seemed to be always some hitch in each one of the channels which the independents tried, some point at which they could be so harassed that the chance of a living freight rate which they had seen was destroyed.

Some time in April, 1876, the most ambitious project of all was announced. This was a seaboard pipe-line to be run from the Oil Regions to Baltimore. Up to this time the pipe-lines had been used merely to gather the oil from the wells and carry it to the railroads. The longest single line in operation was the Columbia Conduit, and it was built thirty miles long. The idea of pumping oil over the mountains to the sea was regarded generally as chimerical. To a trained civil engineer it did not, however, present any insuperable obstacles, and in the winter of 1875 and 1876 Henry Harley, whose connection with the Pennsylvania Transportation Company has already been noted, went to his old chief in the Hoosac Tunnel, General Herman Haupt, and laid the scheme before him. If it was a feasible idea would General Haupt take charge of the engineering for the Pennsylvania Transportation Company? At the same time Mr. Harley employed General Benjamin Butler to look after the legal side of such an undertaking. Both General Haupt and General Butler were enthusiastic over the idea and took hold of the work with a will. It was not long before the scheme began to attract serious attention.The Eastern papers in particular took it up. The references to it were, as a whole, favourable. It was regarded everywhere as a remarkable undertaking: "Worthy," the New York Graphic said, "to be coupled with the Brooklyn Bridge, the blowing up of Hell Gate, and the tunnelling of the Hudson River." As General Haupt's plans show, it was a tremendous undertaking, for the line would be, when finished, at least 500 miles long, and it would be worked by thirty or more tremendous pumps. On July 25 a meeting was held at Parker's Landing, presenting publicly the reports of General Haupt and General Butler. The authority and seriousness of the scheme as set forth at this meeting alarmed the railroads. If this seaboard line went through it was farewell to the railroad-Standard combination. Oil could be shipped to the seaboard by it at a cost of 16-2/3 cents a barrel, General Haupt estimated. All of the interests, little and big, which believed that they would be injured by the success of the line, began an attack.

Curiously enough one of the first points of hostility was General Haupt himself. An effort was made to discredit his estimate in order to scare people from taking stock. They recalled the Hoosac Tunnel scandal and the fact that the General once built a bridge which had tumbled down, ridiculed his estimate of the cost, etc., etc. The "card" in which General Haupt answered his chief critic, one who signed himself "Vidi," was admirable:

A CARD FROM GENERAL HAUPT

What are the charges that I am requested to "smash"?

They are, as I understand them from others, for some I have not seen:

1. That I once built a bridge that tumbled down.

2. That I was connected with the Hoosac Tunnel that cost seventeen millions of dollars.

3. That my estimates of cost of transportation are ridiculously low and unreliable.

1. I did design a bridge some twenty years ago, and constructed a span near Greenfield, in Massachusetts, which gave way, owing to a defective casting, while being tested. The bridge was not finished; had not been opened to the public; had not been accepted from the contractor, who repaired the damage in such a manner that a recurrence of a break would have been impossible. I have built spans of bridges and tested them until they broke, to ascertain their ultimate strength, but I supposed that this was a matter that concerned myself and not the public. If the bridge had been thrown open for public use, and an accident had then occurred from defective design or material, the engineer might have been censurable, but not otherwise. In an experience of nearly forty years I have never had a bridge to fail, after being opened for travel, or a piece of masonry to give way. No accident occurred even upon the temporary military bridges constructed during the war, which President Lincoln used to say were built of bean poles and corn stalks.

2. How about the Hoosac Tunnel?

In 1856 I undertook to build the Hoosac Tunnel, at that time ridiculed as visionary and utterly impracticable. I carried it on until 1862, when its practicability was so fully demonstrated that it was considered some discredit to Massachusetts to allow the work to proceed under engineers from another state, and honourable members of the Legislature declared that Massachusetts had engineers as competent as any that could be found in Pennsylvania. The work in my hands, as was proved by reports of investigating committees, was costing less than $2,000,000, and the trouble then was that the margin was considered too large, and that I was making too much money on the $2,000,000, which the state had agreed to advance. In 1862 the state took the work out of my hands and put it under control of state commissioners and engineers. The result was that instead of getting the Hoosac Tunnel completed for $2,000,000, which was amply sufficient in the hands of H. Haupt and Company, it has now cost, under state management, nearly $17,000,000.

I hope this explanation will be considered sufficient to "smash" Number 2.

3. As to Number 3, the insufficiency of my estimate.

The items which enter into such an estimate are pure and simple. There has been but one omission, and that is malicious mischief or deviltry, and this item is so uncertain that, without a more intimate acquaintance with "Vidi" and his supporters, I could not undertake to estimate it.

I have put coal at five dollars per ton or eighteen cents per bushel, now worth five cents at Brady's and eight at Pittsburg. Is not this enough? I have allowed fifty per cent. greater consumption at each station than has been estimated by others. I have allowed $1,000 a year for each of two engine men at each station. Will anyone say this is not sufficient? And I have, to be safe, estimated the work down below the results given by any of the ordinary hydraulic formula. It would be absurd to tell experienced pipe men that oil cannot be pumped fifteen miles under 900 pounds pressure through a four-inch pipe with a discharge of 5,000 barrels per day, which is all that the estimate is based upon, and it allows sixty-five days' stoppage besides.

Please, gentlemen, let me alone. I have had enough of newspaper controversy in former years. I am sick of it.

H. HAUPT.

At the same time that General Haupt was attacked the Pennsylvania Transportation Company was criticised for bad management. A long letter to the Derrick August 14, 1876, claimed that the company in the past had been mismanaged; that the credit it asked could not be given safely; that its management had been such that it had scarcely any business left. Indeed this critic claimed that the last pipe-line organised, a small line known as the Keystone, had during the last six months done almost double the business of the Pennsylvania. Under the direction of the Pennsylvania Railroad, it was believed, the Philadelphia papers began to attack the plan. Their claim was that the charters under which the Pennsylvania Transportation Company expected to operate would not allow them to lay such a pipe-line. The opposition became such that the New York papers began to take notice of it. The Derrick on September 16, 1876, copies an article from the New York Bulletin in which it is said that the railroads and the Standard Oil Company, "now stand in gladiatorial array, with shields poised and sword ready to deal the cut." An opposition began to arise, too, from farmers through whose property an attempt was being made to obtain right of way. In Indiana and Armstrong counties the farmers complained to the secretary of internal affairs, saying that the company had no business to take their property for a pipe-line. One of the common complaints of the farmers' newspapers was that leakage from the pipes would spoil the springs of water, curdle milk, and burn down barns. The matter assumed such proportions that the secretary referred it to the attorney-general for a hearing. In the meantime the Pennsylvania Transportation Company made the most strenuous efforts to secure the right of way. A large number of men were sent out to talk over the farmers into signing the leases. Hand bills were distributed with an appeal to be generous and to free the oil business from a monopoly that was crushing it. These same circulars told the farmers that a monopoly had hired agents all along the route misrepresenting the facts about their intentions. Mr. Harley, under the excitement of the enterprise and the opposition it aroused, became a public figure, and in October the New York Graphic gave a long interview with him. In this interview Mr. Harley claimed that the pipe-line scheme was gotten up to escape the Standard Oil monopoly. Litigation, he declared, was all his scheme had to fear. "John D. Rockefeller, president of the Standard monopoly," he said, "is working against us in the country newspapers, prejudicing the farmers and raising issues in the courts, and seeking also to embroil us with other carrying lines."

It was not long, however, before something more serious than the farmers and their complaints got in the way of the Pennsylvania Transportation Company. This was a rumour that the company was financially embarrassed. Their certificates were refused on the market, and in November a receiver was appointed. Different members of the company were arrested for fraud, among them two or three of the best known men in the Oil Regions. The rumours proved only too true. The company had been grossly mismanaged, and the verification of the charges against it put an end to this first scheme for a seaboard pipe-line.

Table of Contents