A few days ago (in 1906), the NYT editorial page contained an opinion about Standard Oil using its own pipeline to move its product across long distances at significantly reduced costs relative to the cost of its competitors that used railroads. The editorial basically said, "so be it," in essence granting Standard Oil its lower costs relative to its competitors.

The April 28, 1906 NYT contains a letter to the editor with some insightful comments pertaining to the Standard's pipeline - words that resonate with those of us who disdain the use of government to earn profits:

Your editorial on "The Guilt of Standard Oil" raises two questions:

First - was the right of way used by the pipe lines procured by voluntary purchase or through the use of the State rate of eminent domain.

Second - if the latter, why are not the pipe lines common carriers open to all on equal terms and subservient to the inter-State commerce law?

Of course, it is an important franchise which ought to contribute to the expenses of government through taxation. If, however, the Standard Oil Company or any of its subsidiary corporations purchased the right of way for its pipe line in the open market without condemnation or threat of condemnation, it certainly is entitled to the profit for its recurring enterprise.

The railroad transportation rates may be too high. If so, they should be reduced; but transportation by a private pipe line should not be the measure of railroad freight rates.

FAIR PLAY

My only gripe with the letter is the first six words of the last sentence.