Page:The History of the Standard Oil Company Vol 1.djvu/382

Rh Witness.—Well, sir, where a question is such that it would give a false impression unless answered fully and fairly, I do not want to convey that false impression by my testimony.

Mr. Sheldon.

Q. Very well, I am satisfied with your explanation; now could not these railroad companies have raised the price of freight without the intervention of the South Improvement Company?

A. There were a good many difficulties in the way.

Q. Could they not have done it, and had they not the power to do it?

A. The laws of the State of New York forbid the Erie and New York Central Railroads from combining to raise the rates of freight; whether they could have done it I do not know. They tried very hard to agree to raise the freights but did not succeed.

Q. If that is the law of New York, is there an exception to that law so that they could combine with the South Improvement Company?

A. I think it was the opinion of lawyers that this arrangement was perfectly legal and proper; they could not combine, but they could make an independent agreement.

Q. They could raise the rates in your behalf, but they could not in the behalf of anybody else?

A. Not in behalf of anybody, but they could make this transaction. For two or three years they had been cutting under for the purpose of drawing the business away from each other.

Q. What effect would this increase of freight have upon the consumers of oil?

A. I think it would not be to the prejudice of the consumers in this country at all.

Q. Would it not have increased the price?

A. I think it would not have increased the price to the retail consumers in this country. If there had been no countervailing advantage to the retail consumers, of course it would have increased the price.

Q. You mean to say that there was such a margin upon the traffic of oil that to increase the freight charges fifty or ioo per cent, would not affect the retail price?

A. No, sir; I do not mean to say that is the reason.

Q. Is that not the effect of your answer?

A. No, sir, I think not. My explanation of it is this: that the oil trade, unless it is steadied by some artificial process, is subject to violent and rapid fluctuation. The retailers are very quick to note a rise in price, as I explained the other day, but very slow to notice a fall, so that the average price of a retail purchaser is very much above the average wholesale price. Now it was expeetcdexpected [sic] that the price under this arrangement would be a steady price, and that with a steady, regular price it would not cause the retailer to raise the price at which he sold at all.

Q. Do you know what profit is made on a barrel of oil sold by retailers to consumers in Northern Ohio?