Page:The History of the Standard Oil Company Vol 2.djvu/118

 things are likely to be done which we cannot approve. We correct them as soon as they come to our knowledge. The public hears of the wrong—it never hears of the correction." In the Digest of Evidence made by the Industrial Commission in its report published in 1900 (page 158), it is stated that the money collected was refunded before suit was brought. The facts show that the statement in the report of the Industrial Commission that the money was refunded before suit was brought is wrong, and that, while Mr. Rockefeller is technically correct in stating that the Standard repudiated the contract before it was passed on by the courts, he should have added they did not repudiate the contract until eight months after it was made, and did not refund the money until twelve days after it became certain that the contract would be produced in court. He also does not explain why the Standard Oil Company did not return the money unjustly paid to them on the shipments of the other independent oil concerns of Marietta until exposure by Commissioner Nash's investigation made it inevitable.

But it was not only manipulation of the railroads by the Standard Oil Company of which the public was complaining at this time. The policy of making it impossible for even small independent concerns to do business was attracting more and more attention. Indeed, there was going on in Buffalo, New York, simultaneously with these two cases, a most sensational trial, growing out of an indictment for the crime of conspiracy, by the Grand Jury of Erie County, New York, of three prominent members of the Standard Oil Company—H. H. Rogers, John D. Archbold and Ambrose McGregor—with two refiners with whom they were associated—H. B. Everest and C. M. Everest. The case is reported