OCR Text |
Show I ES IS THE I FOXY WITNESS Refuses to tnswer All Ques-tions Ques-tions Rearing on Possible Oil Combine. I BRIGHT WOMAN GIVES HISTORY OF THE TRUST I When Ordered out by Commissioner Commis-sioner Attorney Refuses to Leave. NKY YORK, Jan. t". It developed from the OAaBBtlOM nsked by Attorney-General Herbert S Hadley of Missouri of Henry i! Rogers, vice-president and director of I the Btandard ii company of New Jersey. I thni one ol Mr Hadley's chief purposes " In conducting an examination uf officers of that company in this city to rtnd out whether that company owns a con-trolllng con-trolllng Interest In the Btandard company com-pany ,,r Indiana, the Waters-Pierce oil I company ol Missouri and the Republic i iii company This. Mr Hadley said to- night, he regarded as a step in the 1 1 - rectlon of excluding the three bit tor j companies from doing business in mik- Refuse? the Information. To most of the Important questions ii asked bj Mr Hadlej bearing dlrectlj on I the question of stock ownership Mr Rog- i-rp fl-i Hni il ii give nn answer "on the ad ii ii of counsel." and Mr Hadley requested re-quested Commissioner Frederick H Snn- bom to certify the qu -thin and Mr Rog-era Rog-era ? refusal to the Supreme court of this State rm h determination as to whether or not Mr Rogers mnpt answer them or be adjudged In contempt. ! Some Questions Turned Down. Mr Rogers lecllncd to reply tO ques- !j tlom at 1 1 1 whethei he controls anj M"k Ih the Waters-Piece OH company, wheth-' wheth-' r M. Van Buren of New York holds a controlling Interesl In thai company for the Standard Oil company Of New Jer- II ey; whethei the New Jcrsej company i! ontrois th- Standard Oil company of in- diana or the Waters-Pierce company, and whether two-thirds of the dividends of the Waters-Pierce company are not paid io H M Tllford, who. nti Roarers aid. has an oflb-e at 2fi Broadway, this city. Tnke Them to Supreme Court. Mr Hadlej tonight declared that he would take all these questions to the Su preme court of New York State to secure .in order for Mr. Rogers to show cause why he shall not answer them Mr. Rogers did say, however, thai he never heard of an agreement between the standard j l company of New Jer- i sey and the Waters-Pierce company to divide the trad,- of Missouri and that he did not believe It was ever made Wants to Show Division. ii Mr Hadlej s.ii.i afterward thai he had an Injunction against such a division, but (hat he was unable in Missouri to show from the offices of the oil companies i hat they are owned by the same part This is what he is aiming to show in the I N'ew York h.-arlng Mr Rogers today declined to answer the question whether he had a transaction with H Clay Pierce In 11KM. by which Mr Rogers seemed all or part of the Waters -Pierce OH company 'S Stot k for the Standard Oil company of New Jer-soy, Jer-soy, or for the Indiana company Mr Kogr i s was sun on the stand when the hearing was adjourned until Mondaj Wants to Delay Game. Tin first witness today was Mrs da M Butts of Marietta O. When the examination exam-ination of Mrs Butts was begun the lypewrlttst hegan his work, but Frank Hagerman. for the Standard Oil Company, Com-pany, demanded that the operatoi repeat ach question and answer after hr had written It. Mr Hadley agreed to this Mr; Butts said she wa n step-daughter of the late Oeorge Rice of Marietta dud had been employed In his office Mr Rio whs an Indep ndenl "H operator nnrt was engaged in litigation with the standard stand-ard Oil companj almost constantly for more than twent years, up to the time of his death, about a year ago. When Mr Hadlej asked the witness if Rlci was ever connected with the standard stand-ard Oil company, counsel for all the oil companies objected r.ut the witness said-Held said-Held Standard Certificates. if holding certificates Is a raember-ihlp; raember-ihlp; hi was i member of the standard Oil trust ' "Were those certificates Issued by the Stands rd ( hi trusi "Yes." Counsel also objected to this question and answer. Witness saiii the Standard Oil company was organ Ized In 18(2 George Rice died lasl year and witness now holds ( ties, certificates as his ad minis tra i H "So far BS you know, are these the only cerilfloaics of the Standard Oil trust In existence'" Sent Against Trust. "So far as I know." Mrs. Butts replied She said the BUll w IS brought aR'llnst the standard oil companj ol Ohio i ' i drive them DUl Of the trust or OUt Of the State n thev remained In the trust in response Id n request bj Hadley for a statement of the history of that ntiga-tion ntiga-tion ami what the Standard Oil company did In 'i fense, Mrs Butts said rhe Standard u im-i moved to die-solve die-solve In 1V,J and Mies,- were liquidating Irusle, rertlllcati s This went on until about ivi; verj few ertlflcates being liquidated Driven Out of Ohio. "Gen, Monett, Attorney-General of ohio. brought suit and i think the Supreme Su-preme court decided ihat the trust should gel out Of Ohio iii is:! and then the Standard Stan-dard Oil company of New. Jersey became the iioMinp companj 'Was tins mo,- iii 1892 to dissolve the Btandard (n oompanj after s Judgment of the i ihio courts against the Btandard (ill company of that Slate?" asked Mr. Hadh j "I think so." Mr. Hadley asked if after the ad erse Judgment Of th( Ohio court the Standard in companj iiii r...t enter on a dissolution dissolu-tion by usinp liquidating certificates in placi of th original trust certificates and ir in 188C when the ( hio state courti en-i' en-i' m . ,1 the ,.rd. r of dissolution the Standard Stan-dard on compan) of New Jersey became the holding company Right to Ask Leading Question. Mr Hagerman objected, but Mr Hadley said h: had a rluhl unii'-r a decision ot the Supreme court of Missouri to ask leading ipri u Mrs Huns b lil In reply to Mr Hadlej I question that the statement was exactly correct. Mr Hadles asked If tho Waters-Pierce Oil company was one of th original mom-I" mom-I" rs i if the Stunda rd ' 'II company Counsel Objected, but Mrs Butts replied "It Is one of the companies named In the trust agreement " She never saw the original agreement, but saw , ertlfled copies She does nol know of any other trust certificates and the liquidating certificate than the ones She bOldS Couldn't Give Names. Asked for the names of thr- companies which composed the original Standard Oil company, she said there were so many of them she could only give them from the trust agreemi at Mr Hadley showed Mrs. Butts three dlfTf-rent kinds of trust certificates a m of them," she said, "represents six Shares In the original Standard Oil trust. The second Is a share of an as-slgnmetit as-slgnmetit ,. 1,-khI title and the third such a share of assignment converted Into SlTlp Of the iwenly different COrpOratlODS now In the great grand division f the trust Kai h pl f scrip bears the name Of a company . II II Rogers was called after Mrs. Bins )i,ki been excused Mi Hadley asked his name, residence and iii pupation, pupa-tion, Rogers Objects to Question. Mr F?"C'i- demanded a rlRht to see the paper on which the question was written, and said It was not a proper qutbllon for Mr. Hadley tO ask i omiulsstoiu r Sanborn instructed him to answer "Am I to see the paper?" asked Mr Rogers The commissioner refused to allow It, and Instructed Mr. Holers to answer Believes Name Is Rogers. I belli ' my name Is Henry H Kog-ers Kog-ers I live in New York and um In the oil business." "What oil company or lompanl .- are ...a connected with"" asked Mr. Hadlej Mr Hagerman. the (oims.-l advised the witness not to answer . V. Rowe. a lawyer, alao objected, and demanded this his objection b not il The ommlssloner declined to note tin-objection tin-objection for the reason, he said, that Mr Rowe represented nobod "l decline to answer," ahi ir Rogers The commlslsoner Instructed him to answer. an-swer. Mr Hadley ask.. I if Mi Rok.-i chimin an personal privileges under the laws of the United States, NTes fork oi Missouri. Mis-souri. 1 chum my p--rson.il right." s;it,i Mr Rogers Claims Personal Right "Do ou mean that to answer uiiht tend to incriminate you to penalty or fi rt. ii oi "" asked Mr Hadlej "1 do not," said Mr. Rogers. Mr Hogi rs here ohji cu rl to the pi , s, n, . (', a photographer who. he said, was taking tak-ing his picture The photographer was told to desist Mr Hadley asked whether if the Su-premo Su-premo courl ordered him to answer he would then refuse. Mr Rogers said. It will be decided at the time." "Bv w hotn 'That also will be determined at the time " "By whom?" Mr Rogers did not answer. "Are you connected with the Standard Oil company of Indiana, the Waters-Pierce Waters-Pierce Oil company of Mlpoouri or the Re-puhlii Re-puhlii fill compnnv of New York"" askd Mr Hadley. Director Standard Oil. "Yes. with the Standard Oil COmpanj of Indiana as director." replied Mr. Rogere "As a stockholder? ' asked Mr. Hadley. Mr Rowe advised witness not to answer an-swer The commissioner told Mr. Rowe not to luierrupt Mr. Hagerman objected to the question and said he wanted the right of Mr. Hartley Hart-ley to Ret at the list if stockholders of Hi' com pa nv decided liv the courts Mr Hadley Bald the picstlon bore on the credibility of the witness as showing his Interests John I Johnson of counsel for the rom- panlei said the State called Mr Ro-eis and should not .inestlou his , r . . ) 1 1 n 1 1 1 - Asks to Be Excused. "I heg respectfully to be excused. ' said Mr. Rogers, Mi Hadlej then asked that the question ques-tion and refusal to answer be certified ao i he Bupreme i ourt "Do you know wl wns a majority of Ihe stock of the Standard (ill company of Indiana?' asked Mr. Hadley. Mi Rowe again advised Mr Rogers not to answer a al the commissioner told hTiu he would havi to request him to leave 'he room if he Interrupted again Mr. Rowe said he knew his rights and would continue con-tinue tO ail- ISC the witness Refuses to Leave Room. The commissioner told him tO leave the room but Mr Rowe declined to do so The commissioner stopped pro eedlngS Snd said hp would not go on until Mr ROWe left I should like to be In his place,' said M i . Rogers Ml Hadlev suggested that Mr Roue ,e allowed to remain, but the commissioner said he would consent only if -Mr Rowe agreed to stop Interrupting. At this point the hearing adjourned until un-til afternoon "omrTssi mer Sanborn said In resuming that Mr Rowe la personal counsel for several witnesses and will be allowed to sit near them rind advise them. lb- sal near Mr R iners. The questions whether Mr Rogers knows who owns or holds n majority of the stork of thnt company was rend The ommlssloner rqucsied him to answer Mr Ropers declined. Mr Hndley asked if he declined because bis answer might subject him to a criminal prosecution. Couldn't Conceive Such a Thing. 'I have no conception of such fl condition condi-tion of things.' replied Mr Rogers "I decline for personal reasons " "What are your personal reasons"" persisted per-sisted Mr Hadley Counsel for the comptuilee objected and Mr. Rogers conferred with Ml Rowe Mr Rogers declined to answer and Mr Hadley- asked him nRaln If he declined because It might subject him to prosecution, prose-cution, penalty or forfeiture. "I cannot conceive auoh a condition of IhlnKS. bill decline to answer mi advice of counsel. 'is that your only reason?" "That Is my answer "Have yon any other reason than the advice of counsel to refuse to ten who controls the stock of the standard ''II company of Indians"' Within His Rights "I believe It Is within my rights tO decline de-cline to answer." 1 might concede that on some grounds ' .ald Mi Had ley Asked another question about this company com-pany Mr Rogers said t know that it is in the nil business, but that Is all I know about it." "Yon feel reasonably sur. of ihat?" "I believe so I have not been there f . . r some years " "Ild you recently take a trip through that section to examine the Standard Oil company s properties?" ' I do not recall It." said Mr Rogers "Tou have a good memory, have you not?' "I object to the question." said Mr It k-ers. k-ers. Mr Rogers said hi- did not go to Indiana In-diana within a few mnths to examine Standard Oil prnpertlen there, but was In Kansas In the course of the last year. Didn't Go in Missouri. I don t think I went into the State of Missouri on that trip. said Mr. Rogers. "Did vou avoid Missouri for fear that you might be subpoenaed In this cast " I did not." "Has the Btandard OH company of Indiana In-diana a refinery at Sugar creek, near Kansas City Mo V "I cannot answer "Take time to think It over " "I don't know," said Mr Rogers 'Do you mean to tell the court that the Standard Oil company In the last yeai has hot built n big refln'-ry near Kansas City from which B pipe line runs tO lilting, Ind ?' Says Question Improper "My answer Is that the miction Is improper im-proper I win give you an answei to that question later 1 |