The History of the Standard Oil CompanyTarbell, Ida M. (Ida Minerva)
History
The History of the Standard Oil Company
Tarbell, Ida M. (Ida Minerva)
Petroleum industry and trade -- United States -- History; Standard Oil Company -- History
Discouraging as this discovery was, however, there was no reason why the
suits against the railroads should not have been pushed through, and the
testimony the officials unquestionably could be made to give, now that
Mr. Cassatt had set the pace, have been obtained. But the Producers’
Union had lost sight for the moment of the fact that the fundamental
difficulty in the trouble was the illegal discrimination of the common
carriers. The Union was so much more eager to punish Mr. Rockefeller
than it was to punish the railroads, that in bringing the suit for
conspiracy it was even guilty of leniency toward the officials of the
Pennsylvania. Certainly, if there was to be an indictment for
conspiracy, all the supposed conspirators should have been included. It
was by discriminations clearly contrary to the constitution of the state
that the Pennsylvania Railroad had made it possible for Mr. Rockefeller
to achieve his monopoly in Pennsylvania. The Union had proof of these
rebates, but they let off Mr. Scott and Mr. Cassatt because “they
professed the greatest desire to get rid of Standard domination, and
were loudly asserting that they had been victimised and compelled at
times to carry oil freights at less than cost.”[79] Evidently the fate
of the settlement the oil men had made seven years before with Mr. Scott
and the presidents of the other oil-bearing roads had been forgotten.
Naturally enough the railroads took advantage of these signs of leniency
on the part of the producers, and brought all their enormous influence
to bear on the state authorities to delay hearings and bring about a
settlement. The Pennsylvania secured delays up to December, 1879, and
then the Governor ordered the attorney-general to stop proceedings
against the road until the testimony had been taken in the other four
cases; that is, in the cases against (1) the United Pipe Lines; (2) the
Lake Shore and Michigan Southern; (3) the Dunkirk, Allegheny and
Pittsburg, and (4) the Atlantic and Great Western. It was a heavy blow
to the Union, for at the moment its hands were tied by the conspiracy
case, as far as the United Pipe Lines were concerned, and the three
railroads were foreign corporations, only having branches in
Pennsylvania, and accordingly very difficult to reach. The testimony
could have been obtained, however, if the Union had been undivided in
its interests. It would have been done, of course, if the state
authorities had been willing to do what was their obvious duty. But the
state authorities really asked nothing better than to escape further
prosecution of the railroads. The administration was Republican, the
Governor being Henry M. Hoyt. Mr. Hoyt had been elected in the fall of
1878 and so had inherited the suits from Governor Hartranft. He was
pledged, however, to see them through, for before the election the
Producers’ Union had sent him the following letter:
“TITUSVILLE, October 23, 1878.
“HENRY M. HOYT:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account