1877, it surpassed all bounds. On a capitalisation of $3,500,000 it paid $3,248,650.01, only a fraction less than 100 per cent. One of its stockholders, the late Samuel Andrews, when on the witness-stand in 1879, said they might have paid the dividend twice over and had money to spare.
The profits were great, but notice the forces set in motion by this coup. The exporters were angry. The buyers in Europe were angry. If the Americans are going to force up prices in this way, they said, we will not buy their refined oil. We will import their crude and refine it ourselves. We will go back to shale oil. A first result, then, of this attempt to hold prices up to a point conspicuously out of proportion to the raw product was that the exports of illuminating oil fell off—they were less by a million gallons in 1878 than in 1877. In the United States the market was threatened in the same way. There had been much trouble in the years just preceding these events with extortionate prices for gas—particularly in New York and Brooklyn. Illuminating oil was so much cheaper that it had been largely substituted, but this artificial forcing of the oil market in 1876-1877 caused a threat to return the next year to gas.
The effect on the refiners who were operating with Mr. Rockefeller in running arrangements was decidedly bad. Each refiner was under bonds to use only a certain percentage of his capacity, and to shut down entirely if Mr. Rockefeller said so. Scofield, Shurmer and Teagle, independents of Cleveland, who had yielded to the attractiveness of Mr. Rockefeller's scheme, and had gone into a running arrangement with him to limit their output, made $2.52 a barrel on their oil from July, 1876, to July, 1877! They had been satisfied with thirty-four cents profit a barrel the year before. Since making oil paid so well, why not make more? Why keep their allotment down to exactly 85,000 barrels, as they had agreed, when they were prepared to make 180,000?
[ 201 ]
