EPIDEMIC OF TRUST INVESTIGATION IN 1888 — STANDARD INVESTIGATED BY NEW YORK STATE SENATE — ROCKEFELLER'S REMARKABLE TESTIMONY — INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF THE MYSTERIOUS STANDARD OIL TRUST — ORIGINAL STANDARD OIL TRUST AGREEMENT REVEALED INVESTIGATION OF THE STANDARD BY CONGRESS IN 1888 — AS A RESULT OF THE UNCOVERING OF THE STANDARD OIL TRUST AGREEMENT ATTORNEY-GENERAL WATSON OF OHIO BEGINS AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO AGAINST THE TRUST — MARCUS A. HANNA AND OTHERS TRY TO PERSUADE WATSON NOT TO PRESS THE SUIT — WATSON PERSISTS — COURT FINALLY DECIDES AGAINST STANDARD AND TRUST IS FORCED TO MAKE AN APPARENT DISSOLUTION
THERE was no characteristic of Mr. Rockefeller and his great corporation which from the beginning had been more exasperating to the oil world than the secrecy with which operations were conducted. The plan of the South Improvement Company had only been revealed to those who signed an agreement to keep secret all transactions they might have with it. The purchase in 1874 and 1875 by the Standard Oil Company of Lockhart, Frew and Company of Pittsburg, of Warden, Frew and Company of Philadelphia, and of Charles Pratt and Company of New York was so thoroughly concealed that Mr. Rockefeller, five years after it occurred, dared make an affidavit that it had never occurred! [120] Men who entered into running arrangements with Mr. Rockefeller were cautioned "not to tell their wives," and correspondence between them and the Standard Oil Company was carried on under assumed names! Whenever the subject of the relations between the various companies came up in a lawsuit or an investigation, a candid and straightforward answer was always avoided by both Mr. Rockefeller and the men known to be associated with him in some way. For instance, in 1879, when H. H. Rogers was before the Hepburn Committee, an effort was made to find out what relation the firm of Charles Pratt and Company, of which he was a member, sustained to the Standard Oil Company. Mr. Rogers's testimony was a masterpiece of good-natured evasion, [121] and all that the examiners could get, though they returned again and again to the inquiry, was that Charles Pratt and Company worked "in harmony" with the Standard Oil Company.
When ex-Governor Nash of Ohio was investigating the relations of the Cleveland and Marietta Railroad and the National Transit Company, try his best he could not find out anything definite. In his report Mr. Nash said: "I have purposely referred to the parties who entered into this arrangement with Receiver Pease and his freight agent, J. E. Terry, as the parties represented by O'Day and Scheide, for the reason that I have not been able to ascertain who or what the parties are." That they were officers of the National Transit Company he had evidence, but what relation had the National Transit Company to the Standard Oil Company? Was it a part of it? Mr. Nash was unable to find from Mr. O'Day, closely as he might question him. [122]
In the Buffalo case, when John D. Rockefeller was on the stand, he was put through a questioning in regard to the relations of the persons concerned in the suit to the Standard Oil Trust, whose existence he admitted. Mr. Rockefeller answered all the questions his lawyers would allow, but at the end the plaintiffs had gained little or nothing, and there was a strong impression, from the attitude of his lawyers rather than from that of Mr. Rockefeller, that an effort was making to conceal the nature of the agreement or charter or whatever it was under which the companies involved were working. Naturally enough this attitude inspired resentment and aggravated the feeling that this secrecy meant evil-doing. When the epidemic of trust investigation broke out in 1888, and the Standard Oil Trust was brought up for examination, there was a general public demand to have the matter cleared up. The first investigation of importance took place in February, 1888, in New York City, and by the direction of the Senate of New York State. A list of more than a score of trusts was in the hands of the committee, and, with the limited time at their disposal, it was certain that they could not look into more than half a dozen. There seems to have been no hesitation about including the Standard Oil Trust. "This is the original trust," wrote the committee. "Its success has been the incentive to the formation of all other trusts or combinations. It is the type of a system which has spread like a disease through the commercial system of this country."
There were several things the committee wanted to know about the Standard Oil Trust, and its president was summoned for examination, (1) What was it? Was it an organisation recognised by any law of the land? Long ago men had decided that partnerships, corporations, companies, in which men united to do business, must be regulated by law and subjected to a certain amount of publicity, if the public good was to be protected. Was the Standard Oil Trust within or without the law? (2) By the testimony of its own members, in other years the Standard Combination controlled from eighty to ninety per cent. of the oil business of the country. Was this supremacy due in any measure to special privileges, such as discrimination in railroad rates? (3) Was its power used to manipulate production and prices, and to prevent men outside entering the oil business?
It was to learn these things that the commission summoned Mr. Rockefeller. Flanked by Joseph H. Choate, present Ambassador to the Court of King Edward and the most eminent lawyer of the day, and S. C. T. Dodd, a no less able if a less well-known lawyer, Mr. Rockefeller submitted himself to his questioners. In no case where he has appeared on the stand can his skill as a witness be studied to better advantage. With a wealth of polite phrases — "You are very good," "I beg with all respect" — Mr. Rockefeller bowed himself to the will of the committee. With an air of eager frankness he told them nothing he did not wish them to know. The committee had a desire to begin at the beginning. It evidently had heard that a short-lived organisation, called the South Improvement Company, had given Mr. Rockefeller his whip-hand in the oil business as far back as 1872, enabling him in three months' time to raise his daily capacity as a refiner from 1,500 to 10,000 barrels, and so they asked Mr. Rockefeller:
Q. There was such a company?
A. I have heard of such a company.
Q. Were you not in it?
A. I was not. [123]
It is a perfectly well-known fact that Mr. Rockefeller owned 180 shares in the South Improvement Company, of which he was a director; that, when a public uprising caused the destruction of the company, he was one of the two men who tried to save it; also that the Standard Oil Company of Ohio was the only concern which profited by the short-lived conspiracy.
Another staggering bit of testimony concerned railroad rates. Asked if there had been any arrangements by which the trust or the companies controlled by it got transportation at any cheaper rates than was allowed to the general public, Mr. Rockefeller answered: "No, sir." As a matter of fact, the three great oil-carrying systems of the country — the Central, Erie and Pennsylvania — had all of them, for much of the period between 1872 and 1888, granted to Mr. Rockefeller rebates calculated to keep freight rates down for the Standard Oil Company and up for its competitors. Contracts and agreements to this effect are easily accessible to any one caring to investigate the quality of Mr. Rockefeller's "no." "No," said Mr. Rockefeller, "we have had no better rates than our neighbours," and then, with that lack of the sense of humour which, ethical qualities aside, is his chief limitation, he hastened to add: "But, if I may be allowed, we have found repeated instances where other parties had secured lower rates than we had."
Later in the day the committee, which seems to have known something of Mr. Rockefeller's former contracts with the railroads, returned to the subject, and the following colloquy, worthy of the study of all witnesses interested in how not to tell what you know, took place:
Q. Has not some company or companies embraced within this trust enjoyed from railroads more favourable freight rates than those rates accorded to refineries not in the trust?
A. I do not recall anything of that kind.
Q. You have heard of such things?
A. I have heard much in the papers about it.
Q. Was there not such an allegation as that in the litigation or controversy recently disposed of by the Interstate Commerce Commission, Mr. Rice's suit; was not there a charge in Mr. Rice's petition that companies embraced within your trust enjoyed from railroad companies more favourable freight rates?
A. I think Mr. Rice made such a claim; yes, sir.
Q. Did not the commission find that claim true?
A. I think the return of the commission is a matter of record; I could not give it.
Q. You don't know it; you haven't seen that they did so find?
A. It is a matter of record.
Q. Haven't you read that the Interstate Commerce Commission did find that charge to be true?
A. No, sir; I don't think I could say that. I read that they made a decision, but I am really unable to say what that decision was.
Q. You did not feel interested enough in the litigation to see what the decision was?
A. I felt an interest in the litigation; I don't mean to say that I did not feel an interest in it.
Q. Do you mean to say that you don't know what the decision was? that you did not read to see what the decision was?
A. I don't say that; I know that the Interstate Commerce Commission had made a decision; the decision is quite a comprehensive one, but it is questionable whether it could be said that that decision in all its features results as I understand you to claim.
Q. You don't so understand it? Will you say, as a matter of fact, that none of the companies embraced within this trust have enjoyed more favourable freight rates than the companies outside of your trust? Will you say, as a matter of fact, that it is not so?
A. I stated in my testimony this morning that I had known of instances where companies altogether outside of the trust had enjoyed more favourable freights than companies in this trust; and I am not able to state that there may not have been arrangements for freight on the part of companies within this trust as favourable as, or more favourable than, other freight arrangements; but, in reply to that, nothing peculiar in respect to the companies in this association; I suppose they make the best freight arrangements they can." [124]
|
Table of Contents | |