The enormous dimensions of the profits con templated in this case—and no doubt afterwards reaped—would presumably have excited suspi cion very quickly among Scofield, Shurmer and Teagle's acquaintances who had seen them in their struggling days had not Mr. Rockefeller been an adept in joining secrecy to fraud as the basis of his operations. To quote Miss Tarbell (i. p. 66) :— According to the testimony of one of the firm given a few years later on the witness-stand in Cleveland the contract was signed at night at Mr. Rockefeller's house on Euclid Avenue in Cleveland, where he told the gentleMen that they must not even tell their wives about the new arrangement, that if they made money they must conceal it—they were not to drive fast horses, "put on style," or do anything to let people suspect there were unusual profits in oil refining. That would invite competition. They were told that all accounts were to be kept secret. Fictitious names were to be used in corresponding, and a special box at the post-office was employed for these fictitious characters. In fact, smugglers and housebreakers never surrounded their operations with more mystery.
" Smuggling," " housebreaking," " burglary " are all terms that have been used to designate Mr. Rockefeller's methods, though much has been made of his mild demeanour and gentle persuasiveness in dealing with his rivals. To my mind his persuasiveness is on a par with that of the bold highwayman sung of in the " Pickwick Papers " But Dick put a couple of balls in his nob And perwailed on him to stop.
The Standard Oil Trust has been repeatedly and publicly charged in America with using in the pursuits of its ends or the defence of its interests such weapons as perjury, bribery, open violence, and arson. They concern, of course, individual members of the combination rather than the whole combination, and we begin with that part of the case which concerns Mr. J. D. Rockefeller personally.
In 1888 the mystery surrounding the ramifica tions of the Standard ring caused the Senate of New York State to order an " Investigation Relative to Trusts," and before the Commission entrusted with this investigation Mr. Rockefeller appeared and was questioned as to the initium malorum—the South Improvement Company. I quote from the official report of this investiga tion :— Q. There was such a company 2 A. I have heard of such a company. Q. Were you not in it ? A. I was not.
As pointed out in my former articles, Mr. J. D. Rockefeller was a director with 180 shares in the concern, and the fact is now absolutely beyond dispute. The statement above was made
on February 28th, and on April 30th following Mr. Rockefeller appeared before a Committee of the House of Representatives at Washington, and the following colloquy took place :— Q. I want' the names particularly of 'gentlemen who either now or in the past have been interested with you gentlemen who were in the South Improvement Company 2 A. I think they were 0. T. Waring, W. P. Logan, john Logan, W. G. Warden, 0. H. Payne, H. M. Flagler, William Rockefeller, J. A. Bostwick, and—myself.
A direct contradiction of his own words with in the space of two months I Again, questioned as to railway rates by the New York Senate Committee, Mr. Rockefeller was asked if there had been any arrangements by which the Trust or the companies controlled by it got transporta tion at any cheaper rates than were allowed to the general public, and his answer was :— No, we have had no better rates than our neighbours. But, if I may be allowed, we have found repeated instances where other parties had secured lower rates than we had.
The Committee, however, was not satisfied, and returned to the charge later on in the day, and Mr. Rockefeller, after much wriggling and evasion, practically admitted the contrary :— 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 2 A. I do not recall anything of that kind.
Q. You have heard of such things 2 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 2 A. I think Mr. Rice made such a claim. Yes, sir.
Q. Did not the Commission find the claim true 2 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 Commis sion 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 2 A. I felt an interest in the litigation. I don't mean to say I did not feel an interest in it.