Now, in considering these differences, liberal allowance for freight rates must be made. Something of what these allowances should be can be judged from the table of oil freights which the Industrial Commission published with its schedule of prices. From this table many interesting comparisons can be made. For instance, it cost the Standard Oil Company (if they paid the open rate their rivals did) 1.5 cents to send a gallon of oil from Whiting, Indiana, their supply station, to Mobile, Alabama. They sold their oil in Alabama at wholesale from 11½ to 16 cents. The net cost of this oil was under five cents in February, 1901. It cost them the same 1.5 cents to send a gallon of oil to Des Moines, Iowa (if they paid the open rate), but in Iowa they sold it from 7 to 11. The freight from Whiting to New Orleans was the same 1.5 cents, but prices in Louisiana ranged from 9 to 14 cents. According to the investigation the average wholesale price of oil, including freight, ranged from 8.27 in Pennsylvania to 25.78 in Nevada.
Freights and handling considered, there is, it is evident, nothing like a settled price or profit for illuminating oil in the United States. Now, there is no one who will not admit that it is for the good of the consumer that the normal market price of any commodity should be such as will give a fair and even profit all over the country. That is, that freights and expense of handling being considered, oil should sell at the same profit in Texas as in Ohio. That such must be the case where there is free and general competition is evident. But from the beginning of its power over the market the Standard Oil Company has sold domestic oil at prices varying from less than the cost of the crude oil it took to make it up to a profit of 100 per cent. or more. Wherever there has been a loss, or merely what is called a reasonable profit of, say, ten per cent., an examination of the tables quoted above shows conclusively it has been due to competition. The competition is not, and has not been since 1879, very great. In that year the Standard Oil Company claimed ninety-five per cent. of the refining interests of the country. In 1888 they claimed about eighty per cent.; in 1898, eighty-three per cent. This five to seventeen per cent. of independent interest is too small to come into active competition, of course, at all points. So long as one interest handles eighty-three per cent. of a product it is clear that it has the trade as a whole in its hands. The competition it encounters will be local only. But it is this local competition, unquestionably, that has brought down the price of oil at various points and caused the striking variation in prices recorded in the charts of the Industrial Commission and other investigations. The writer has before her a pile of a hundred or more letters written in the eighties by dealers in twelve different states. These letters tell the effect on the prices of the introduction of an independent oil into a territory formerly occupied exclusively by the Standard:
Calvert, Tenn.—The Waters-Pierce Oil Company (Standard) so reduced the price of their oil here when mine arrived that I will have some trouble to dispose of mine.
Chattanooga, Tenn.— ... Cut the price of oil that had been selling at 21 cents to 17 cents.
Pine Bluff, Ark.—While the merchants here would like to buy from some other than the Standard they cannot afford to take the risks of loss. We have just had an example of one hundred barrels opposition oil which was brought here, which had the effect of bringing Waters-Pierce Oil Company’s oil down from 18 to 13 cents—one cent less than cost of opposition, with refusal on their part to sell to anyone that bought from other than their company.
Vicksburg, Miss.—The Chess Carley Company (Standard) is now offering 110° oil at nine cents to any and every one. Shall we meet their prices? All they want is to get us out of the market, then they would at once advance price of oil.
These are but illustrations of the entire set of letters; prices dropped at once by Standard agents on the introduction of an independent oil. A table offered to Congress in 1888, giving the extent of their cutting in the Southwest, shows that it ranged from 14 to 220 per cent.
Every investigation made since shows that it is the touch of the competitor which brings down the price. For instance, in the cost and profit sheet from a Standard ledger referred to above, there was one station on the list at which oil was selling at a loss. On investigation the writer found it to be a point at which an independent jobber had been trying to get a market. If one examines the tables of prices in the recent report of the Industrial Commission, he finds that wherever there is a low price there is competition. Thus, at Indianapolis, the only town in the state of Indiana reporting competition, the wholesale price of oil was 5½ cents, although forty out of the fifty-three Indiana towns reporting gave from 8 cents to 10½ cents as the wholesale price per gallon. (These prices included freight. Taking Indianapolis as a centre, the local freight on oil to any point in Indiana is in no case over a cent.) In April, 1904, inquiry showed the same striking difference between prices in Indianapolis, where six independent companies are now established, and neighbouring towns to which competition has not as yet reached.
The advent of an independent concern in Morristown, New Jersey, brought down the price to grocers to 7½ cents and to housewives to 10, but in the neighbouring towns of Elizabeth and Plainfield, where only the Standard is reported, the grocers pay 9 cents and the housewives 12 and 11, respectively. In Akron, Ohio, where an independent company was operating at the time the investigation was made, oil was sold at wholesale at 5¾ cents; at Painesville, nearer Cleveland, the shipping point, at 9¼ cents. In Richmond, Virginia, one dealer reported to the commission a wholesale price of 5 cents, and added: “A cut rate between oil companies; has been selling at 9 and 10 cents.”
In the month of April of 1904 150° oil was selling from tank-wagons in Baltimore, where there is competition, at 9 cents. In Washington, where there is no competition, it sold at 10½ cents, and in Annapolis (no competition) at 11 cents. In Seaford, Delaware, the same oil sold at 8 cents under competition. The freight rates are practically the same to all these points. And so one might go on indefinitely, showing how the introduction of an independent oil has always reduced the price. As a rule, the appearance of the oil has led to a sharp contest or “Oil War,” at which, not infrequently, both sides have sold at a loss. The Standard, being able to stand a loss indefinitely, usually won out.
An interesting local “Oil War,” which occurred in 1896 and 1897 in New York and Philadelphia, figured in the reports of the Industrial Commission, and illustrates very well the usual influence on Standard prices of the incoming of competition. On March 20, 1896, the Pure Oil Company put three tank-wagons into New York City. The Standard’s price of water-white oil from tank-wagons that day was 9½ cents, and the Pure Oil Company followed it. In less than a week the Standard had cut to 8 cents[[154]] along the route of the Pure Oil Company wagons. In April the price was cut to 7 cents. By December, 1896, it had fallen to 6 cents; by December, 1897, to 5.4. It is true that crude oil was falling at this time, but the fall in water-white was out of all proportion. For, while between the price of refined on March 20 and the average price of refined in April along the Pure Oil Company route, there was a fall of 2½ cents, in crude there was a fall of but four-tenths of a cent. Refined fell from 7 cents in April to 6 cents in May, and crude fell one-tenth of a cent. John D. Archbold, in answering the figures given by the Pure Oil Company to the Industrial Commission, accused them of “carelessness,” and gave the average monthly price of crude and refined to show that no such glaring discrepancy had taken place. Mr. Archbold gives the average price in March, for instance, as 7.98 and in April as 7.31 cents. However, his price is the average to “all the trade of Greater New York and its vicinity,” whereas the prices of the Pure Oil Company are those they met in their limited competition. As Professor Jenks remarked at the examination: “It might easily be, therefore, that your” (Standard) “average price would be what you had given, and that to a good many special customers with whom the Pure Oil Company was trying to deal it could be five and a half cents.” That this was the fact seems to be proved by the quotations for water-white oil from tank-wagons, which were published from week to week in trade journals like the Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter. These prices show 9⅞ cents for water-white on March 21, and an average of 9.4 cents in April. Evidently only a part of the trade of “all Greater New York and vicinity” got the benefit of averages quoted to the Industrial Commission by Mr. Archbold.
If competition persists the result usually has been permanently lower prices than in territory where competition has been run out or has never entered. For instance, why should oil be sold to a dealer at nearly four cents more on an average in Kansas than in Kentucky, when the freight from Whiting to Kansas is only a cent more? For no reason except that in Kentucky there has been persistent competition for twenty-five years, and in Kansas none has ever secured a solid foothold. Why should Colorado pay an average of 16.90 cents for oil per gallon and California 14.60 cents, when the freight from Whiting differs but one-tenth of one cent? For no reason except that a few years ago competition was driven from Colorado, and in California it still exists.
Indeed, any consecutive study of the Standard Oil Company’s use of its power over the price of either export or domestic oil must lead to the conclusion that it has always been used to the fullest extent possible without jeopardising it; that we have always paid more for our refined oil than we would have done if there had been free competition. But why should we expect anything else? This is the chief object of combinations. Certainly the candid members of the Standard Oil Company would be the last men to argue that they give the public any more of the profits they may get by combination than they can help. One of the ablest and frankest of them, H. H. Rogers, when before the Industrial Commission in 1899, was asked how it happened that in twenty years the Standard Oil Company had never cheapened the cost of gathering and transporting oil in pipe-lines by the least fraction of a cent; that it cost the oil producer just as much now as it did twenty years ago to get his oil taken away from the wells and to transport it to New York. And Mr. Rogers answered, with delightful candour: “We are not in business for our health, but are out for the dollars.”