So much of the contract as we have referred to was admitted. Why was it, then, the counsel for the railroad fought against showing it, even to the point of pleading that it might incriminate his client?[215] It was asserted, as of his personal knowledge, by the counsel of the independents that this was because another part of the bargain gave the proof that the rates which had been made under the agreement to put them up and keep them up were extortionate; that by a bargain within the bargain the oil combination carried oil for the railroad for the 280 miles for which they ran practically side by side, and for this charged it only 8 cents a barrel. The public, shipping either by the railroad or by the pipe line, had to pay 52 cents a barrel for 500 miles; but by this arrangement between themselves the two carriers would do business at 8 cents a barrel for 280 miles, at which rate the charge to the public to the seaboard should have been not quite 15 cents instead of 52 cents.
The statement was also made that the oil combination, instead of giving the railroads the business it has guaranteed them, makes its obligation good by turning over to them periodically a check for the profits they would have had on hauling that amount of traffic. As the guarantee was made as a consideration for the maintenance of high freight rates, such a payment by it would amount, in cold fact, to paying those in charge of the highways a large bribe to deny the use of them to the people.
This declaration of the provisions of the bargain was made by the counsel for the refiners seeking relief from the Interstate Commerce Commission. In his argument demanding the production of the document he said: "I have had it in my hand and read every word of it, and know exactly what it contains."[216]
The sharpest legal struggle of the case was made on the demand that this paper be produced. The Commission decided that it was "wholly immaterial," although the chairman had previously said: "It seems to us that we cannot exclude this evidence." It was a document establishing interstate rates, and these are required by law to be published, and the Commission had always before this been liberal in compelling the production of papers which related to the making of rates.[217] The Commission had shortly before been threatened in this case by the counsel for the Pennsylvania Railroad with extinction if it insisted upon evidence of the cost of piping oil which the oil combination refused to give.