| Show NOTHING IN THE CHARGE E Standard Oil Oi Attorney Gives History of the Monnett Monnet Fiasco in Ohio CASE OF MISTAKEN ZEAL SUPREME COURT OF OHIO UNANIMOUS UNANIMOUS UNANIMOUS IN TAKING ACTION Cleveland Ohio Oct O t 5 S H Tolles Tol Toll s member or of the firm of or Kline Tolles Toles Foff Fot attorneys for Cor the te Standard Oil Oi company tonight issued the following statement giving the Standard Stan Oil side of the charges char s of or at attempts attempts attempts tempts to bribe F S Monett formerly attorney general generl of Ohio The charge that Mr Monett had been offered and had declined a large sum of or money to drop his prosecutions against a the StandardS Standard Standard Oil on company com pan was wasI I first made public by one ohe George Rice in an Interview at Marietta Mariett and given to the newspapers on March 3 1894 The charge at that time received no credence Mr Monett himself was at first reported to have denied the charges but afterward made some general intimations that there might ml ht be some truth in them The particulars lars lam lar of the attempt were we carefully con concealed concealed by him Names Demanded The Te public press at once began to demand that he name the guilty guity person or persons and on March 20 1899 not having done so Elliott Elot and Kline on behalf of or the Standard Oil on company wrote him the following open opeti letter letterOn leter On March arch 4 Ins George Rice an announced announced flounced to the public press that a bribe of less commis commission commission commission sion would be offered you ou to induce you to stop or delay proceedings against the Standard Oil 01 company now pending in the supreme court of Ohio You are reported to have denied entirely the Rice Rie story stor but by b the time you arrived at Columbus on the even evening evening evening ing of the he same day you ou concluded that the story stor was true and accord accordingly accordIngly accordingly in various newspapers on the evening of the instant you made the statement that the Standard Oil 01 company through some friends of or yours had offered you ou to in influence influence fluence your action acton with wih respect to tile tie cases Ohio pending against it and other Newspapers Wanted to Know Reputable newspapers state notably the Cleveland Leader Toledo Blade and Ohio State Journal have called upon you ou to disclose the name of the friend frend who thus corruptly ap approached approached approached you You are reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer of or the Ins as saying that if you were to give out the name of your friend half a dozen depart departments department departments ments ment of the trust would be after him himat himat himat at once and it might be that they the could force or persuade him to keep kep his mouth shut You You do not no seem to realize that the reason given by you for refusing to disclose the name of your friend Is an admission that the company does dos not know the name of the party part whom you say sa it I commissioned to offer ofer you and therefore you ou must I 3 have known the alleged friend fren made male the offer to without the ofer you ou authority or pany knowledge of the Standard Oil Oi com corn company company I Would Not Expose Friend I In the New York Y rk World on the you ou are reported as saying you had written the friend who tried to bribe you ou that you ou would not ex expose expose expose pose him until the public Interest de demanded demanded demanded It ItIn f itIn In another interview in the Cin Cincinnati Commercial Tribune of the Ins you ou are reported as saying that your friend had agreed to pro protect protect protect you The arrangement for pro protection protection therefore seems to be mutual 4 So far as any connection of the Standard Oil Oi company with wih any at attempt attempt attempt tempt to bribe you ou is concerned it i is totally total false I You have the names or claim caim to have not only of the friend who ap approached approached you but also of the others other acting with him because on the instant you Jou said in n the public pUb c prints pr that these men were ere telegraphing you ou from New York York While le in your o r story has directly ty come d the Standard Oil on company comp with the attempted bribery bribers you have desired elred the public to assume such connection We now demand that you give the name or names name of or the per person pe p x son or or persons who made such an offer oter to you claiming to represent the Standard Oil on company compan that we e may mar take steps to quiet this last lat most vicious of at the many false fase and sensa sensational t stories stores to which yau have given currency Respectfully M ELLIOTT I VIRGIL P KLINE INE Attorneys for Cor Standard OH on Com Corn Company Company pany Rambling Statement Filed Fled After fer waiting until April 15 a pe period period nod of days das he filed in inthe inthe the supreme court cour of Ohio a 3 bill bi of information This was merely a rambling statement that somebody had approached him hm with a a suggestion that there would be at least the sum of for him hJ if I he should sl agree to discontinue the proceedings against the Standard Oil OI He still sti named nobody n bod tho same reason The attorney for the Standard imme immediately immediately diatel filed fe with the court a a motion moton re requiring requiring requiring quiring the attorney general to name the theman theman theman man who he claimed caime had approached him and to appoint a disinterested person to investigate and report promptly to the supreme court upon the truth or falsity of the charge charge After ACer waiting two days da s he flied filed fileda flieda fed feda a second document in which he names Mils his friend frind who had attempted to bribe him C B Squires who ho had never in any an manner been connected with wih the Standard Oil 01 company formerly of or Cleveland but then of New Ne York York The Te friend named promptly prompt and of his own motion moton denied the charge and since its Is recent revival in a signed sige interview appearing in the New York World orld of Sept Sept 26 1908 10 gain promptly and with no hesitancy stated that the charges of Mr r Monnett were absolutely false Squires Statement In the signed statement he further said that after the supreme court sus sustained sustained tamed the demand of the attorney for the Standard Oil 01 company that the name of the attempted briber be published Monnett told him he was wa in a corner and asked aked the privilege of naming him as the briber Neither of the documents document filed fe with the supreme court directly charged char ed the Standard Oil on company compan or 01 any an of its It officers off officers cers or agents agent with any an complicity in the alleged bribery They simply stated that the said Squires had claimed to represent certain of these officials I No charges having been made upon which it could act the supreme court COUt therefore on the day of September entered an order upon Its It journal joural as a follows Ordered that the information herein filed fied by the attorney general on the loth day of April Apri 8 be stricken n from the flies files it not appearing that there there is any competent evidence to connect the de defendant defendant defendant with the alleged offer to the at attorney attorney attorney torney general Entire Entre Court Concurred This was the action acton not of ofa a single judge but of the th entire entre Mr Monnett has chosen to connect connet my m name with wih an order order preventing his tak taking taking taking ing further testimony The order to which he refers had nothing whatever to todo todo todo do with wih the bribery charges A master commissioner had been appointed by the court before whom the parties partes were to take all al their evidence In the main case caseIn In January 1899 18 he filed fied a motion moton to have this order rescinded and the wit witnesses wi witnesses nesses brought directly before the supreme court That application was met by an answer and affidavits I 1 appeared at that hearing The court had no information except that which ap appeared appeared upon the face of his application the answer anwer thereto and the affidavits regularly filed fed From these thes it i appears that Mr 11 Monnett Instead of taking his testimony before the commissioner ap appointed appointed appointed pointed for that purpose was taking depo depositions depositions under notices issued for that pur purpose pose pos that the evidence he vas taking had no or bearing bering fas upon the mat matters matter ter before the court and that he was simply using his position in inan inan inan sible an effort efort to create some sensation if I pos possible possible possible pon full ful hearing the court ordered that he h discontinue the deposition pro proceedings proceedings and complete his evidence nce before the commissioner as a the te court has already directed him to do Charge Was Untrue This is th the only basis for the charge which is utterly false and untrue that there was any suppression of the taking of testimony The charge char e is equally false that the court or any member of it had hadan any an Information from counsel and at the hearing it was wa so stated by Mr Mon Monnett Monnett Monnett nett The statement has appeared as eman emanating emanating from hom Mr Ir Monnett onnet that twentythree boxes of day da books book and ledgers had been burned This statement is I absolutely false false There was no evidence at any an time that a a single Ingle book ledger or account book of any kind whatever has been ben burned at atall atal atall all al and the depositions which Mr Ir Mon Monnett Monnett Monnett nett took in his effort to establish that fact utterly failed faie In their purpose |
