Finally, the operations of these men have, in their own language, not been "business." Its secretary told Congress that the "trust" was "not a business corporation,"[720] and an associate declared in court that it "cannot do business." The report of the New York Legislature shows that on October 3, 1883, the president had by a formal instrument been made the attorney of the trust to sign and execute all the contracts made by it. The same instrument in express terms confirmed the execution of contracts heretofore signed by him, showing that he had been making contracts.[721]
"Those gentlemen" (the members of the trust who hold its power of attorney) "do actually execute contracts involving pretty large amounts, sometimes without a formal resolution of the Board of Trustees, do they not?" one of them was asked.
"Undoubtedly they do."[722]
Following their employers, the lawyers in the Pennsylvania Tax case for the oil combination argued that its operations were not business within the meaning of the tax law. If the "no money" of 1862 has become the control, in one industry alone, of $160,000,000 in 1892 by methods that are not "business," what are they?
Note.—The principal members of the oil combination were heard at great length in its defence before the committee of Congress investigating trusts in 1888.[723] Their testimony has been frequently used in our pages. But they felt that their case needed further elucidation, and asked the committee to hear them again. The committee declined to hear them again "explain or contradict," as they offered to do, but by printing their communication gave them the benefit of their denials and explanations.[724] Their offer was mainly to go again over the ground that the "South Improvement Company never did any business," that the combination "obtained no preferences" on the railroads, that they had cheapened transportation, improved machinery, made better oil at less cost, and so on. The chief officers and owners had been heard on all these points to the extent of hundreds of pages of testimony. But though it did not recall them to the witness-stand, the committee, in addition to printing their communication, printed most of the documentary evidence they desired to submit. This covered nearly two hundred pages more.[725]
The examination, which any one can make, of this record discloses an interesting fact concerning the proof, and the trust's offer to prove, which can best be shown in parallel columns:
| TRUST'S OFFER TO PROVE. | THE PROOF. |
| It offered the evidence of the third vice-president of the Pennsylvania Railroad to "show the South Improvement Company never did any business, and its charter was repealed in 1872." | But the testimony of this witness states that his connection with the oil business of the Pennsylvania that scheme—did not begin until 1873. [726] |
| It offered the same evidence to prove that the same rebates granted it by the contract of October 17, 1877, "were also granted to every shipper who contracted to do all his business over the Pennsylvania Railroad." | But this witness stated that his road would give other shippers as low rates as to the oil combination, "if they would guarantee the same quantity—not otherwise—under that contract";[727] and the contract itself states that no other shipper should have the same rebate—"commission," it is called—unless his business gave the road "the same amount of profit you realized from our trade."[728] No shipper could get the same rates by giving "all his business." He must give "the same quantity"—a totally different proposition. |
| It offered the evidence taken in the Buffalo Explosion case, to show that "C.B. Matthews testified falsely" in testifying that it was sworn to that the members of the oil combination on trial employed detectives in Matthews' refineries, and that the detective was some time in Matthews' employ, and made his report to the lawyer of the trust, and he got his pay from this lawyer. | The evidence shows that this was what was sworn to: "I have now a detective agency here" (Buffalo). "I employed L—— B——. At the time he was in my employ he was employed at the works of the Buffalo Lubricating Company" (Matthews' company). "He made reports to me.... I forwarded copies—one to New York, one to Rochester.... The one forwarded to New York was addressed to" (the lawyer of the oil trust). "I met" (this lawyer, naming him) "at New York City, at No. 44 Broadway, which is the office of the" (oil trust). "I received my pay from" (him). "My instructions from" (him) "were in writing."[729] |
| It offered "to prove that C.B. Matthews testified falsely in saying that it was proved by a witness" that the Rochester representative of the oil combination said that the principal company in it "would sue Matthews once a month, or once a week, if necessary, to squeeze him out." | This was what "was proved by a witness," and referred to by Matthews. "He" (the Rochester representative of the oil combination) "said he thought they" (Matthews' company) "would not survive.... By the time they got through with all the suits that they" (the oil combination) "would bring, the Buffalo Lubricating Company would be pretty much used up.... He didn't know as they would gain anything really, but they would embarrass them by bringing these suits, and if it was necessary they would bring them once a month—yes, they would bring them once a week."[730] |
Similarly, throughout, the trust's offer to prove falls when confronted with its own proof. Many more instances could be given, but more than one instance is not needed.