Standard Oil Company; Trusts, Industrial -- United States
This compelled him to turn to the Macksburg, Ohio, field for most of
his petroleum. He had one tank-car, and he ran this back and forth
faster than ever. Then came the next blow. The railroad over which he
ran his tank-car doubled his freight to 35 cents a barrel, from 17-1/2.
That was not all. The same railroad brought oil to the combination's
Marietta refineries at 10 cents a barrel, while they charged him 35.
That was not all. The railroad paid over to the combination 25 cents
out of every 35 cents he paid for freight. If he had done all the oil
business at Marietta, and his rival had put out all its fires and let
its works stand empty, it would still have made 25 cents a barrel on
the whole output. Rice found a just judge when he took this thing into
court. "Abhorrent," "dangerous," "gross," "illegal and inexcusable
abuse by a public trust," "an unparalleled wrong," are the terms in
which Judge Baxter gave voice to his indignation as he ordered the
removal of the receiver of the railroad who had made this arrangement
with the combination, to enable it, as the judge said, "to crush Rice
and his business."[375]
In an interview, filling four columns of the New York _World_ of March
29, 1890, the head of the trust which would receive this rebate is
reported to have made this attempt to reverse the facts of this and
similar occurrences: "The railroad company proposed to our agent,"
he said. But the judge who heard all the evidence and rendered the
decision, which has never been reversed or impaired, declared that it
"compelled" the railroad to make the arrangement, "under a threat of
building a pipe line for the conveyance of its oils and withdrawing its
patronage." This arrangement was negotiated by the same agent of the
oil combination who engineered the similar "transfer" scheme by which
the trunk-line railroads gave it, in 1878, 20 to 35 cents a barrel out
of the freights paid by its competitors in Pennsylvania, as already
told.[376]
"I reluctantly acquiesced," the receiver said, writing in confidence
to his lawyer, anxious lest so acquiescing he had made himself legally
liable. The interview describes the arrangement as an innocent thing:
"A joint agreement for the transportation of oil." It was an agreement
to prevent the transportation of oil by anybody else. Judge Baxter
shows that it was a joint agreement, procured by threats, for the
transportation of "$25 per day, clear money," from Rice's pockets into
the pockets of the members of the trust for no service rendered, and
without his knowledge or consent, and with the transparent purpose of
transporting his business to their own refineries. Judge Baxter called
it "discrimination so wanton and oppressive it could hardly have been
accepted by an honest man, and a judge who would tolerate such a wrong
or retain a receiver capable of perpetrating it, ought to be impeached
and degraded from his position."[377]
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