Standard Oil Company; Trusts, Industrial -- United States
It is one of the few bright lines in this picture that whenever the
people got a chance to make themselves heard, their utterance was
always right and true. The four juries which passed upon the facts
understood them, and had the moral standard by which to judge them
aright.
One of the trust's employés was put on the stand to break the effect
of the evidence that the competition of the new works had put down the
price of oil. "In the early part of 1881--the winter of 1881"--he said,
"common oil was 5-1/2 cents a gallon"--this to prove that the reduction
had preceded the appearance of the new refinery. He was confronted
by the District Attorney with one of his own bills of oil sold in
February, 1881. "That would seem to be a sale of 120 degrees oil at 12
cents a gallon," he confessed, and added, awkwardly, "I was asked as to
the winter of 1881. That is not the winter of 1881 as I understand. I
meant to speak from July, 1881, and so on."[500]
The great lawyers held up to the ridicule of the jury the idea that the
gases of distilling petroleum were dangerous. Matthews stated on the
stand that he had seen this gas burn up derricks, property, and several
men. The lawyers could not let anything so absurd go unchallenged.
"Did it explode?" he was asked smartly.
"Yes, sir."
"And how did the 'explosion' burn up the men and property?" with a
knowing look to the jury.
"The gases crept quietly to the boilers, unobserved," said the witness,
"and all at once the whole atmosphere was ablaze."
The witnesses who tried to prove that no harm could have resulted from
the tampering with the still broke down. One of them was the inspector
of oils at the combination's refinery at Cleveland. He, too, had once
been an independent refiner, but had passed under the yoke. He declared
with every possible variation of phrase that there could not have been
an explosion at the Buffalo works; but the District Attorney got out of
him piecemeal admissions that the "escaping petroleum gases would be
inflammable"; that "in a damp day you would expect them to settle close
to the still"; that then, if they came in contact with fire, "you would
have a large flash, and consume those vapors; if a person was in the
vicinity he would burn."
"I ask you if it would be a safe thing to fill a still with 175 barrels
of petroleum, put under it an extremely hot fire, so that the front
portion of the still is a cherry red, and a weighted safety-valve is
blown off--would you consider that a safe thing to do?"
"I would not."
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