OIL MEN CHARGE STANDARD WITH INTRENCHING ITSELF IN STATE AND NATIONAL POLITICS — ELECTION OF PAYNE TO SENATE IN OHIO IN 1884 CLAIMED TO ESTABLISH CHARGE OF BRIBERY — FULL INVESTIGATION OF PAYNE'S ELECTION DENIED BY UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS — PAYNE HIMSELF DOES NOT DEMAND INVESTIGATION — POPULAR FEELING AGAINST STANDARD IS AGGRAVATED — THE BILLINGSLEY BILL IN THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE — A FORCE BILL DIRECTED AGAINST THE STANDARD — OIL MEN FIGHT HARD FOR IT — THE BILL IS DEFEATED — STANDARD CHARGED WITH USING MONEY AGAINST IT — A GROWING DEMAND FOR FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE STANDARD A RESULT OF THESE SPECIFIC CASES
THE cases described in the last two chapters naturally aroused intense interest in the Oil Regions. The two in Ohio demonstrated afresh the chief grievances which the oil men had against the Standard Oil Company since 1872 — that they were securing rebates on their own shipments and drawbacks on those of their competitors. The Buffalo case demonstrated that when their ordinary advantages failed to get a rival out of the way they winked at methods which a jury called criminal. It was fresh proof of what the oil men had always claimed, that the Standard Oil Company was a conspiracy! At the same time that these cases were arousing their indignation anew there occurred in Ohio an affair which gave them new evidence of their old charge that the Standard was steadily intrenching itself in state and national politics in order to direct the course of legislation to suit itself. There had been many evidences of this, satisfactory enough to the initiated. There was no doubt that the investigation of 1876 and the first bill to regulate interstate commerce introduced at that time had been squelched largely through the efforts of two members of Congress, one of them directly and the other indirectly interested in the Standard — these were J. N. Camden of West Virginia, head of the Camden Consolidated Oil Company, now one of the constituent companies of the Standard Oil Trust, and H. B. Payne of Ohio, the father of the treasurer of the Standard, Oliver H. Payne. It had certainly used its influence to oppose the free pipe-line bill which the independent oil men had been fighting for since the early days of the industry. In 1878 and 1879, during the prosecution of the suits against the railroads and the Standard by the Petroleum Producers' Union, there had been incessant charge of the use of political influence to secure delay. It was a matter of constant comment in Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania that the Standard was active in all elections, and that it "stood in" with every ambitious young politician, that rarely did an able young lawyer get into office who was not retained by the Standard. The company seems to have taken a hand in politics even before the days of the South Improvement Company, for Mr. Payne once said in the United States Senate that when he was a candidate for the House of Representatives in 1871, "no association, no combination" in his district did more to bring about his defeat or spent so much money to accomplish it as the Standard Oil Company! [114]
But all of the examples they quoted were more or less poor in evidence. Of no one of them perhaps could they have produced satisfactory proof. Now, however, simultaneously with the three cases outlined in the last two chapters there came a case of bribery in an election which they held established their charge. The case was the familiar one of the election of H. B. Payne of Ohio to the United States Senate in January, 1884. Mr. Payne was at the time of his election the aristocrat par excellence of Cleveland, Ohio. He had birth and education, distinction of manner and mind. His fine old mansion still remains one of the most distinguished houses in a city of beautiful homes. He had been active in Democratic politics for many years — a member of the state Senate and a member of Congress, and he had been mentioned as the Democratic candidate for the presidency in 1880, receiving eighty-one votes on the first ballot. At the time of his election to the Senate he was a man seventy-four years old. Now Mr. Payne's son, Oliver H. Payne, was one of the thirteen original members of the South Improvement Company, and one of the rare Cleveland refiners who had a strong enough stomach to go into the Standard Oil Company when it swept up the oil trade of Cleveland in 1872, and he had gathered in his share of the spoils of that raid. Oliver Payne was proud of his father, and it was well known that he wanted to see him in the Senate of the United States, but there had been no movement to nominate him, and in 1883 he seems to have made up his mind to see what he could do.
A United States Senator was to be elected in Ohio in November. In October a new State Legislature was chosen, and the Democratic members were instructed for one of two candidates for the Senate, George H. Pendleton or General Durbin Ward, both men of prominence and long service in the public life of the state. Mr. Payne's name was not mentioned in the canvass. Nevertheless, hardly had the Legislature convened when there sprang up at the Neil House in Columbus an extraordinary Payne boom. Its backers were Senator Payne's own son, Oliver H. Payne, at that time treasurer of the Standard Oil Company, and Colonel Thompson, a prominent personage in the same concern. Their lieutenants were also members of the company in one capacity or another. Large sums of money were alleged to have been circulated. There was a rumour that Oliver Payne said the election cost him $100,000. It was claimed that it could be proved that a check for $65,000 had been cashed in Cleveland by one of the men most prominent in the Payne boom, and that the whole sum had been spent in Columbus.
A perfect uproar of indignation followed the announcement of Mr. Payne's choice. All over the state the Standard Oil Company was charged with the election. The Democratic press was particularly bitter:
Said the Butler County Democrat: "It was simply a question whether Pendleton, Ward, Thurman, Converse, Follett, Geddes, or any other capable and honest Democrat, should receive the compliments of a seat in the Senate, or that the Standard Oil Company should buy the place for Henry B. Payne. It was an honest and divided Democracy against a hydra-headed dictatorship of rich men on whose banner was inscribed 'Money Talks.'"
The Carroll County Chronicle in commenting on the election said: "It is a great mistake to suppose Standard Oil has captured the Democratic party of Ohio. It may have captured a score or two of men elected to the Legislature, but they are not the Democracy of Ohio by a long shot. When the British got General Benedict Arnold they imagined they had captured the United States army, but it was a mistake."
"The monopoly of the Standard Oil Company must be destroyed," declared the Columbus Times. "Its intrusion into political circles must be prevented. There must be no later acceptance of this outrage. Political purity and perpetuity permit no complacency. These pernicious foreign elements must be eradicated, and until they are no Democrat will enter the capitol of Ohio or of the nation. The rottenness that uncovered itself last night has not its confines in Ohio."
The comments were not confined to papers of the state. The New York Sun, under the head "Was Payne's Election Bought?" said:
"The subjoined communication from a source which we always respect is worthy of more attention than is usually bestowed upon the animated expressions of those whose preferences have not been realised:
"'It is now believed, and I believe, that the Standard Oil Company recently bought with money Ohio's seat in the Senate of the United States for Mr. Payne. Now, can the social respectability of a man make such a crime respectable? Or is there to be one standard of political morality for Republicans and another for Democrats? Or are Democrats expected to condemn corruption only when practised by Republicans, and to condone, defend, and cover it up when practised by Democrats, or when it is found only in the Democratic party? In my opinion there is no danger so threatening to free institutions as the sale and purchase of political power, and nothing more to be condemned.'"
Although these charges were kept up for two years neither the Standard Oil Company, Mr. Payne, nor the Legislature which had elected him noticed them. The scandal became one of the issues of the next campaign and was instrumental in making the next Legislature of Ohio Republican. As soon as the new Legislature convened at the opening of 1886 an investigation of the Payne case was ordered. Some fifty-five witnesses were examined, and the resulting testimony turned over to the Senate of the United States for its examination. The testimony did not prove the charge of bribery, the Ohio Legislature said, but it was of such a nature as to require the Senate's attention. The matter went to the Senate Committee on Elections, and in July, 1886, a majority reported against the further investigation asked by the state of Ohio. [115] Against this decision two members of the committee, Senators Hoar and Frye, protested:
"Is the Senate to deny to the people of a great state, speaking through their Legislature and their representative citizens, the only opportunity for a hearing of this momentous case which can exist under the constitution? We have not prejudged the case, nor do we mean to prejudge it. We sincerely trust that the investigation, which is as much demanded for the honour of the sitting members as for that of the Senate or the state of Ohio, may result in vindicating his title to his seat and the good name of the Legislature that elected him.
| · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | · |
"How can a question of bribery ever be raised or ever be investigated if the arguments against this investigation prevail? You do not suppose that the men who bribe or the men who are bribed will volunteer to furnish evidence against themselves? You do not expect that impartial and unimpeachable witnesses will be present at the transaction? Ordinarily, of course, if a claim like this be brought to the attention of the Senate from a respectable quarter that a title to a seat here was obtained by corrupt means, the Senator concerned will hasten to demand an investigation. But that is wholly within his own discretion and does not affect the due mode of procedure by the Senate. From the nature of the case, the process of the Senate must compel the persons who conducted the canvass and the persons who made the election to appear and disclose what they know; and until that process issue, you must act upon such information only as is enough to cause inquiry in the ordinary affairs of life.
"The question now is not whether the case is proved; it is only whether it shall be inquired into. That has never yet been done. It cannot be done until the Senate issues its process. No unwilling witness has ever yet been compelled to testify; no process has gone out which could cross state lines. The Senate is now to determine, as the law of the present case and as the precedent for all future cases, as to the great crime of bribery — a crime which poisons the waters of republican liberty in the fountain — that the circumstances which here appear are not enough to demand its attention."
|
Table of Contents | |