# The History of the Standard Oil Company/Volume 2/Chapter 12

CHAPTER TWELVE
THE BUFFALO CASE
VERY soon after Mr. Rockefeller began to "acquire" independent refineries, whose owners were loath to sell or go out of business, unpleasant stones began to be circulated in the oil world of the methods used in getting the offending plants out of the way. When freight discriminations, cutting off of crude supply, and price wars in the market failed, other means were tried, and these means included sometimes, it was whispered, the actual destruction of the plants. The only case in which this charge was made which ever came to trial was that of the Buffalo Lubricating Oil Company, Limited. For sake of clearness, a narrative of the case has been drawn from the testimony offered, no statements being admitted which were not brought out in the trials.
It seems that some time in 1879 the owners of the Vacuum ​Oil Works, of Rochester, New York—H. B. and C. M. Everest, father and son—sold to H. H. Rogers, J. D. Archbold and Ambrose McGregor of the Standard Oil Company, for $200,000, a three-fourths interest in that concern. The purchase was not made for the gentlemen in whose names it appeared, but for the Standard. Thus, when on the witness-stand J. D. Archbold was questioned as to the real ownership of the stock which had been bought in his name, the examiner wanted to know whether the purchasers represented themselves or somebody else.
"Mr. Archbold," he asked, "you made the contract, did you not, with reference to the transfer of the seventy-five shares of the Vacuum Oil Company's stock by the Messrs. Everest?"
A. I bought the seventy-five shares, yes, sir.
Q. Whom did you represent in that transaction?
A. I represented the shareholders of the Standard Oil Company.
Q. After this purchase was made did you continue to represent the purchasers in the management of the affairs of the Vacuum Oil Company?
A. I did.
Q. By virtue of power delegated to you, or by virtue of being a member of the board of directors or trustees of the Vacuum?
A. By the virtue of power delegated to me.
Q. By the purchasers?
A. By the purchasers.
The Vacuum manufactured principally lubricating oils used on harness and car wheels. It controlled several valuable patents and had been doing a prosperous business for a number of years. By the terms of the sale in 1879 the Everests remained as managers of the refinery, on a salary of $10,000 a year. They also contracted to enter into no outside oil business for ten years. The business policy of the Vacuum, including the fixing of salaries, was dictated by a board of directors made up of Messrs. Rogers, Archbold, McGregor and the two Everests. The meetings of this board were held at the office of the ​Standard Oil Company, in New York or in Rochester, as convenient.
So far as can be inferred from the testimony, the works were well managed, the dividends large, and the employees well treated. In 1880 the salesman of the concern, J. Scott Wilson, decided to leave the Vacuum and go into business for himself. The decision seems natural, for until 1878 Mr. Wilson had carried on an independent oil business of one kind or another. He had been a partner in a refinery and understood making oils. He had been a jobber on his own account before going with the Everests, and as such had had a considerable clientele. Wilson told one of his fellow employees, Charles B. Matthews, of his decision, and asked him to go with him. Matthews had been with the Everests about the same length of time as Wilson—some two years. Previous to this engagement he had been a farmer, and his acquaintance with the Vacuum people had come about by his drilling on his farm for oil. Matthews was worth some $20,000, but he had had no experience in oil refining, for his duties at the Vacuum had been mainly looking after outside business—for instance, he had several times gone to New York to consult J. D. Archbold and H. H. Rogers concerning business matters, and particularly concerning patents owned by the Vacuum, of whose validity there was some doubt. For some time Matthews had been dissatisfied with his salary—he had asked for a raise, but had not got it—a fact which probably made him more favourable to Wilson's suggestion.
The two men decided finally to form a company and to build an oil refinery at Buffalo. Wilson said on the witness-stand that he did not want to handle the Vacuum processes in the new works, but to make only the oils with which he was familiar. Matthews, however, had convinced himself that the patents which covered certain of the Vacuum processes and apparatus were invalid, and insisted that they build at ​least one Vacuum still. The question of what steps the Vacuum might take to stop them was discussed, and according to Wilson's testimony Matthews remarked that he expected they would pay $100,000 or $150,000 to prevent their going into business. Matthews's remark was natural enough, considering the conditions under which outside refiners were forced to do business. It is probable that no man undertook any kind of independent oil business at that time, particularly oil refining, without considering the possibility of being driven to sell.
The new firm needed an experienced stillman accustomed to the Vacuum processes, and early in 1881 they asked one Albert Miller, a stillman in the Vacuum works, to join them. "If we have Miller," they told each other, "we can go to the customers of the Vacuum Oil Company and say to them: 'We have the same process and the same apparatus and the same oils as the Vacuum Oil Company, and we have their former superintendent, Mr. Miller, to manufacture the oils.'" Miller had been with the Everests for several years, having worked his way up from a labourer at two dollars a day to a position where, as stillman, he was paid by the hour, and earned from $1,200 to $1,400 a year. He and his wife had been thrifty, and had several thousand dollars in property. Miller thought there was money in the new venture, and consented to join Wilson and Matthews. The three set about carrying out their plans before they notified their employers of their intention to leave—Miller going so far as to order certain iron castings needed in the construction of their works, made after patterns owned by the Everests. He had these made at the foundry patronised by the Everests. He paid for them himself, and carried them away, presumably giving the impression that they were for his employers.
Early in March Matthews and Miller notified C. M. Everest, who was in charge, his father being in California, that they were going to leave and establish at Buffalo an inde​pendent oil refinery. Mr. Everest, surprised out of discretion by the news, told them plainly that although he had nothing against them personally, he should do all in his power to injure the proposed concern. He asked them where they expected to get oil, and they replied that they would get it from the Atlas Refining Company, an independent concern in Buffalo, which had its own pipe-line. "You will wake up some morning and find it is in the Standard," replied Mr. Everest. Apparently Mr. Everest's threat had little influence on the men, for they pushed the building of the works in Buffalo as rapidly as possible. On March 15 they signed an agreement to carry on the proposed business for five years, each man to put in $2,000. A month later the three men, with two relatives of Matthews, organised a stock company—the Buffalo Lubricating Oil Company, Limited—with a capital of $40,000.
Although Miller had gone to Buffalo the first of March with Matthews and Wilson, he returned frequently to Rochester to see his family. On several of these visits he saw C. M. Everest, who never failed to ask about the progress of the new concern, and to warn him that the Vacuum Company would never allow it to do business. "Don't you think, Miller," Everest said to him once, "that it would be better for you to leave those men and have $20,000 deposited to your wife's credit than to go to these parties?" Miller affirms that he answered that he had gone with the new firm in good faith, and thought he ought not to leave them.
BLEACHING TANK
CONSTRUCTING AN IRON TANK FOR STORING OIL
OIL AGITATORS
FIVE-BARREL STILL USED IN THE FIFTIES IN DISTILLING CRUDE OIL AS A LUMINANT
"Mr. Everest stated that Miller had left his employ, and got engaged with another oil concern in the City of Buffalo; that he desired to get back again; he wanted him to come back; and he said he supposed Miller had explained to me his situation, and the obligations he was under to the Buffalo company. I told him that he had made some statements to me about his contract with the parties in Buffalo; that he had spoken about being an endorser or party to the note made by, I think he said, Matthews and Wilson and himself, and I think another party—four or five of them had made, endorsed a note to raise money, done to start the Buffalo business, and that he had a contract or an arrangement with them to go into a company at Buffalo to manufacture oil, and that he wanted to know how he could get out of that arrangement. I stated what I had said to Miller, that he would, of course, be liable on the note, if he was charged properly when it became due, and that if he wanted to get out of that arrangement my advice to him had been to see if he couldn't get released; if they wouldn't release him ​or buy out his interest; then, if he couldn't do that, the only other way I saw was for him to leave them and take the consequences. I told him that I did not know the exact terms of his contract, but, if he had entered into a contract and violated it, I presumed there would be a liability for damages, as well as a liability for the debts of the Buffalo party. Mr. Miller and Everest both talked on the subject, and Mr. Everest says, 'I think there is other ways for Miller to get out of it.' I told him I saw no way except either to back out or to sell out; no other honourable way. Mr. Everest says, substantially, I think, in these words: 'Suppose he should arrange the machinery so it would bust up, or smash up, what would the consequences be?'—something to that effect. 'Well,' I says, 'in my opinion, if it is negligently, carelessly done, not purposely done, he would be only civilly liable for damages caused by his negligence; but if it was wilfully done, there would be a further criminal liability for malicious injury to the property of the parties, the company.' Mr. Everest said he thought there wouldn't be anything only civil liability, and said that would—he referred to the fact that I had been police justice, had some experience in criminal law—and he said that he would like to have me look up the law carefully on that point, and that they would see me again."
Miller's version of this interview is similar:
"I think Mr. Truesdale or myself, I am not positive which, asked the question what means I could take to get out of the company. H. B. says, 'There is a good many ways he could get out.' Either Mr. Truesdale or myself asked him how. 'Well,' he says, 'he can cut up something or do something to injure them; something of that kind, to get out'; H. B. said this. Mr. Truesdale spoke up and said, 'You must be very careful what you do or you will lay yourself criminally liable.' Mr. Everest says to me, 'There is ways that you can get out.' I says to him, 'You wouldn't want me to do anything, would you, to lay myself liable?' I think Mr. Truesdale spoke up and says, 'You must be very careful or you will end in state's prison,'—that is, I. There was considerable conversation I cannot just exactly remember; I have told all I recollect at present. Mr. Truesdale asked me if I had a contract with the Buffalo parties; I told him I had; 'Well,' he says, 'the best thing you can do is to stay there, then,' or something of that kind. I cannot say those were his exact words. H. B. Everest says, 'If he comes back with us, why, we will look after him.' I think Mr. Truesdale said that these men would be after me for leaving them. I think I told him the terms of the contract… Mr. Everest says, 'They will have to catch Miller before they can do anything to him; we will take care of him.'"
In a talk with Miller a little while after this, C. M. Everest said to him: "You go back to Buffalo and construct the pipes so that they cannot make a good oil, and then, I think, if you would give them a little scare. You might scare them a little, they not knowing anything about the business, and you know how to do it." On account of Miller's neglect, the first still in the new refinery was not ready to be fired until June 15—it was an ordinary still, as was the second one built—the third only was built for the Vacuum process. As soon as the still was ready it was filled with some 175 barrels of crude oil and a very hot fire—"inordinary hot" was the droll description of the fireman—built under it. Miller, who superintended the operations, swore at the fireman once or twice because the fire was not hot enough, and then disappeared. While he was gone the brickwork around the still began to crack. The safety valve finally blew off, and a yellow gas or vapour escaped in such quantities that the superintendent of a neighbouring refinery came out and warned the fireman that he was endangering property. Miller was hunted up. He had the safety valve readjusted—it was thought by certain witnesses that he had it too heavily weighted—and ordered the fires to be rebuilt, hot as before. He again disappeared. In his absence the safety valve again blew off. The run of oil was found to be a failure. It was not a pleasant augury, but oil refiners are more or less hardened to explosions and no one seems to have thought much of the accident. Nobody was injured; nothing was burned, nothing but 175 barrels of oil spoiled; that, in an oil refinery, is getting off easy.
On the 23d of June Miller made the transfer of property advised by the Everests, talked over things with Truesdale, and a week later left the Buffalo Works suddenly on receipt of a telegram, and joined H. B. Everest at the Union Square Hotel in New York. Here Everest advised him to telegraph his wife to move at once to Rochester lest Matthews attach ​their household goods, and then proposed the two go to Boston. The only event of interest at the Union Square Hotel was an entirely casual meeting with H. H. Rogers, one of the directors of the Vacuum Oil Company. Mr. Rogers seems to have had no conversation with Miller other than to remark, in leaving, that he would see him the next day if he did not go to Boston. The men did, however, go to Boston, where they registered as "H. B. Everest and friend," and where several times, at least, Everest introduced Miller under an assumed name. They junketed about for some days on what Everest tried, with indifferent success, to persuade Miller was a pleasure excursion! While they were amusing themselves, Everest hired Miller at $1,500 a year to "do any fair job we put him at, either at Rochester or some other place." The job turned out to be a rambling one—a few weeks of semi-idleness in Boston—then nothing until September, when he undertook to supervise the drilling of a salt well in Leroy, New York. This lasted until February, 1882; then nothing until May, when, on the advice of H. B. Everest, who had returned to California, Miller went there: "Pack up, sell your property there and come on. Come right to my house and I will help you to get a place and show you how to raise fruit and be an independent man." Miller went, the Vacuum Oil Company paying his expenses. On his arrival he was put to work in a cannery. The Everests explained that they made this arrangment because they thought it would put Miller where he could not be brought back to trouble them any more.
In the meantime things were going badly with the Buffalo Lubricating Works. Miller's loss was a severe one. The men were all novices in making oil, save Wilson, and he was on the road, and they seem to have been unable to find a competent manager. The Everests soon succeeded, too, in getting Wilson out of the new firm by bringing a suit against him for damaging its business by unlawfully leaving it. The suit was with​drawn and the costs paid, when Wilson consented, in December, 1881, to leave the Buffalo Works. Wilson's loss was particularly serious, as he was a salesman of experience.
The suits for infringing the Vacuum patents and processes, which Everest at the start had warned Matthews would be brought, were begun in September, 1881—four separate suits within a year. Matthews, as has been said, had convinced himself that the patents were not valid, and some time in the spring of 1882 he saw H. H. Rogers in New York concerning the suits. "I told him I had come in to talk with him about the patent litigation, or suits that were begun by the Vacuum Oil Company against my company," Matthews said in his testimony. "'Well,' he said, 'well, what about it?'—something like that. I told him that the product patent, that I well knew, was without merit, and that he knew it was without merit, and I could not see what object or good they could get out of it by bringing suit on that patent. And also the steam patent I considered was without value, and that he knew it was without value. He said that if one court did not sustain the patents they would carry along up until we got enough of it—that was the substance of that talk."
Matthews was evidently discouraged by the result of his talk with Mr. Rogers, for, meeting Benjamin Brewster, of the Standard Oil Company, he offered to sell the Buffalo Lubricating Works for $100,000. The offer was refused, and the suits against which Mr. Matthews protested were pushed. On the 21st of February, 1882, the Vacuum Oil Company filed a complaint in the United States Circuit Court of the Northern District of New York, asking that the Buffalo company be prevented from manufacturing lubricating oils, on the ground that the Vacuum Oil Company had a patent covering the process of manufacturing lubricating oils. The action was regarded as unfounded by the court, and was dismissed on July 16, 1884, "the ground being that the letters sued on in this ​cause are void." April 25, 1882, another action was commenced by the Vacuum Oil Company against the Buffalo company to obtain an injunction and an accounting for damages upon the ground that the Buffalo company was using an apparatus covered by a patent belonging to the Vacuum Oil Company, but this action also was dismissed March 17, 1885, upon the ground that the letters patent sued upon were "null and void." On February 23, 1883, the Vacuum Oil Company commenced still another action against the Buffalo company asking for an injunction to prevent the Buffalo company from using a label advertising "The Acme Harness Oil made by the Vacuum Process," because the Vacuum Company had long used a somewhat similar label advertising "The Vacuum Harness Oil manufactured by Vacuum Oil Company," but the judge in the case decided that the Vacuum Company had no more right to use labels than the Buffalo company. This decision has since been affirmed by the General Term of the Supreme Court. Still another action was brought against the Buffalo company April 25, 1882, for infringing a patent on a steam process, also a patent upon a fire test. This action resulted in a decree sustaining the fire-test patent, but declaring the steam patent void. The case was then referred to James Breck Perkins, of the Rochester bar, to decide the amount which the Buffalo company had infringed on this patent. Mr. Perkins on a number of different occasions took a large amount of proof there in behalf of the Vacuum Company upon which its counsel claimed that it was entitled to $12,000 damages upon the accounting. The Buffalo company submitted no proof in contradiction, but insisted that the whole proof showed nothing more than a purely technical infringement of the patent, and this view was sustained by Mr. Perkins in his report which awarded six cents damages against the Buffalo company.
The disappearance of Miller, the man on whom the firm ​had depended for superintending building and refining, the withdrawal of Wilson, with whom the enterprise had originated and on which it had staked its hopes of finding a ready market, and the series of suits for infringement of patents, suits which cost Matthews thousands of dollars as well as much embarrassment and delay, were troubles brought on him, so he believed, as the result of a deliberate attempt on the part of the Vacuum Oil Company to make good C. M. Everest's threat to do all in his power to ruin the Buffalo Lubricating Works, and, in the spring of 1883, he brought a civil suit against the Everests for $100,000. While Matthews was working up his case he learned that Miller had returned from California, that he had left the Everests because he claimed they had "not treated him right," and that he was idle in Rochester. Miller seems to have left California chiefly because he had gotten it into his head that the information he had about the measures the Vacuum had taken to prevent the Buffalo Works carrying on their business was valuable. H. B. Everest testified that Miller once said to him after he was settled in California: "Mr. Everest, you have always been kind to me, and I shall do nothing to injure you, but I am going to bust the Standard." I said: "Al, how will you go to work to do that?" "More ways than one," he said; "they can't afford to let me loose," he said. "Sha'n't be bought off, either, unless I get something for it. It will cost them more than twenty-five or fifty thousand dollars before they get through with me." I said: "Al, I think you can make more money raising fruit in California than you can fighting the Standard." This conversation was held immediately after the Vacuum had paid Miller $1,000, in addition to the salary of $1,500 they gave him, and for no apparent purpose except to keep him quiet.
When Matthews learned of Miller's return he asked him to come to Buffalo, and evidently got from him then, for the first time, the story of the pressure the Everests had brought ​to bear on him to leave the Buffalo Lubricating Works, the "fixing" of the still at their advice so that something would "smash," the transfer of his property, his two years of semi-idleness on $1,500 a year and a bonus of $1,000, paid for a reason which can only be surmised, and his final breaking in California, because, as he claimed, he saw no settled employment in view and no prospect of the Everests doing more for him than they were, and, as they claimed, because he believed he could get a big sum from the Standard to keep silent. To all of this Miller made deposition in July, 1884.
The first civil suit was brought to trial early in March, 1885, and it resulted in the jury giving a verdict of $20,000 to Matthews for damages. The court set the sum aside, claiming that they had proved only $4,000 in damages and that he would not sustain an award of punitive damages. Matthews's counsel now obtained a stay of proceedings and finally a new trial. Now about this time Matthews secured evidence which emboldened him to give his suit a much wider range than he had at first intended. This was the testimony of the lawyer Truesdale, quoted above, that in his office Everest had suggested that Miller "arrange the machinery so that it would bust up or smash up." The explosion of June 15 was immediately construed as the result of this counsel. On the strength of this evidence Matthews instituted a second civil suit for damages of $250,000 caused by conspiracy to blow up the works of the Buffalo company, to entice away its employees, to bring unfounded suits against it, and to slander the company's product, and he added to the original defendants the three other directors of the Vacuum Works—H. H. Rogers, J. D. Archbold and Ambrose McGregor—and the Standard Oil Company of New York, the Acme Oil Company of New York and the Vacuum Oil Company. Matthews seems to have argued that, as Rogers, Archbold and McGregor were directors with ​the Everests in the Vacuum Oil Company, they had probably been consulted by the Everests concerning Miller, and could be included in the conspiracy, and, as the Vacuum, Standard Oil Company and Acme Oil Company were all concerns in the Standard Oil Trust, they, too, could be included. He also went before the Grand Jury of Erie County in opposition to the advice of his counsel and secured there an indictment of H. H. Rogers, J. D. Archbold, Ambrose McGregor and the two Everests for criminal conspiracy. The defendants succeeded in getting the indictment set aside the first time, but Matthews re-presented the case, and a second indictment was found of the same persons. It should be noted that Mr. McGregor was indicted only because he was a director of the Vacuum Works, his name not being mentioned in the evidence presented to the Grand Jury.
An indictment for conspiracy of three men of such prominence as Mr. Rogers, Mr. Archbold and Mr. McGregor riveted the attention of the whole country on the coming trial. It was apparent from the first that the Standard meant to put up a big fight to have the indictment quashed. They had, indeed, set a strong machinery at work immediately to get evidence on which to bring a counter charge of conspiracy; that is, that Matthews's intention in starting the Buffalo Lubricating Works was never to do business, but to force the Standard to buy him out at a big price. They at once set a detective to work on the case, one item of his instructions reading: "We have reason to believe that the suit is brought for the purpose of forcing the Standard to purchase the works of the Buffalo Lubricating Company, and Matthews has made certain statements to that effect; would like reports of any statements or admissions by him in relation to his objects in these suits." Under the direction of this detective, a man employed in Matthews's works for some months made daily reports of what he saw and heard there, copies of which were forwarded to ​the Standard office in New York. A detective was also put on Miller's track. Miller was now employed in a refinery in Corry, Pennsylvania, and here he was for a long time under espionage. The chief expression obtained from him was by luring him into a saloon one Sunday afternoon and getting him half drunk. While in this condition, the saloon-keeper testified, he said the Buffalo suit was a—humbug, but there was money in it and that they (he and the persons who were drinking with him) might as well make it as anybody.
It was on May 2, 1886, that the trial began. The array of wealth and legal learning in the Buffalo court-room during the fourteen days' case set not only the town, but the country agape. There were not only the Standard men indicted for conspiracy—H. H. Rogers, J. D. Archbold, Ambrose McGregor—but Mr. Rockefeller himself was there, quiet, steady, watchful. The hostile said the accused and their counsel were disdainful of the proceedings—nobody charged Mr. Rockefeller with disdain. With him were other strong men of the concern, William Rockefeller, Daniel O'Day, J. P. Dudley. There was a great array of legal learning—five eminent lawyers—Wilson S. Bissell, a former law partner of ex-President Cleveland; W. F. Cogswell, of Rochester, counted then one of the ablest lawyers of the state; Theodore Bacon and F. G. Outerbridge, both of Rochester; Daniel Lockwood, famous in politics as well as law; and, of course, S. C. T. Dodd. This for the accused. For the people was the district-attorney of Erie County, George T. Quinby, with one assistant. For fourteen days witnesses were examined, and the above story was dragged from them by dint of questioning and cross-questioning. On May 10 the testimony for the prosecution ended, and the "people rested." The Standard lawyers immediately applied for the acquittal of Mr. Rogers, Mr. Archbold and Mr. McGregor, on the ground that no fact or circumstance had been proved that connected them in the slightest ​degree with the charge of conspiracy to lure Miller away or to destroy the Buffalo Works. The district-attorney combated the proposition vigorously. These gentlemen, he contended, owned three-fourths of the Vacuum Works; they were always present at directors' meetings; it was a fair presumption that they knew what was done to persuade Miller to leave the Buffalo Works; they must have known the moneys paid him while he was doing little work. Mr. Rogers had certainly threatened Matthews that he would carry up the patent suits until the Buffalo Works got enough of it. Judge Haight, however, advised the jury to acquit Mr. Rogers, Mr. Archbold and Mr. McGregor. "The indictment charges a conspiracy," the judge said. "It also charges certain overt acts. One of the acts charged in the indictment is the enticing away from the Buffalo company of a servant. Another of the acts alleged is an attempt to blow up or destroy the Buffalo Works, and another act that of bringing false suits against the corporation. So far as the agreement or combination to entice away a servant from the Buffalo company is concerned, I have not been able to recall any evidence which shows that either of these three defendants ever knew of it, ever heard of it, or ever took any part in it at all. So far as the charge of an attempt to blow up the Buffalo Works is concerned, I have been unable to recall any evidence that has been given in which either of these three defendants ever knew of it, ever heard of it, ever advised it, or ever took any part in it whatever. The only thing about which I have had any doubt was in reference to the maintaining of actions which have been brought upon patent rights which were formerly owned by the Everests, and by the Everests transferred to the Vacuum Oil Company, and it appears that two suits were brought upon patents, and that there was another suit, a third one, in reference to a trade-mark. It appears from the evidence that upon one occasion Mr. Matthews went to New York and ​had a talk with Mr. Rogers, and that his conversation has already been discussed and related in your hearing. The query in my mind was as to whether or not the inference could not be drawn, from this conversation, that Rogers did know of the bringing of these actions, acquiesced in their being brought, and in that way became a party to them; but, even conceding that the actions were brought with his knowledge and consent, I am inclined still to think that the evidence is hardly sufficient to warrant his conviction, for the reason that it does not appear that the actions were brought without probable cause; in other words, the bringing of an action and being defeated in the action is not of itself sufficient to authorise a jury to say that it was a false action. That standing alone is not sufficient to authorise a jury to say that it is a false action, but there must be shown in addition to that that there was a want of probable cause; in other words, that the party bringing the action knew and understood beforehand that he had no good cause of action… I am inclined to the opinion that the evidence would not warrant his conviction upon that ground."
The acquittal of the three Standard gentlemen was followed by an application for the acquittal of the Everests, but the case with them was different. It had been proved conclusively that they threatened at the start to ruin the new concern, and that they had counselled Miller "to arrange the machinery so it would bust up or smash up"; there was a strong presumption that Miller, acting on this advice, had arranged for the explosion of June 15, though, as he claimed, he meant only to "give them a scare." The judge denied the application in their case, therefore, and the trial went on. The whole force of the defence was now thrown to proving that Matthews had gone into the Buffalo Lubricating Company merely to sell out. His offer to Mr. Brewster in 1882, his talk of making the Standard settle, were rehearsed. Two witnesses were pro​duced also who told of seeking Matthews in 1885, after the criminal suit was brought, and of offering, on the ground that they knew the Standard defendants, to attempt to settle the affair. Matthews had told these men that if the Standard would give him $250,000 for his refinery, he would withdraw the civil suit, but that he could not touch the criminal suit, as it was in the hands of the district-attorney. The jury was not greatly influenced by the evidence produced to show that Matthews was a blackmailer. Evidently they concluded that, granting that the Everests had cause of complaint against the men for using their processes—they certainly had no just cause in the fact of the three men setting up in business for themselves—granting that the enterprise was started for blackmailing purposes—and there was no proof offered that it was—the Everests should have taken their case into the courts—not plotted the destruction of the refinery by any such underhand methods as they employed. Whatever the jury's process of reasoning, however, it is certain that on May 16 they brought in a verdict of "guilty as charged by the indictment."
The most strenuous efforts were made to set the verdict aside. The judge granted a stay, and an attempt to get a new trial was made, but unsuccessfully. The sentence was stayed until May, 1888. The statute provided a penalty of one year's imprisonment or $250 fine, or both. Efforts were at once made to soften the sentence. A petition signed by over forty "leading citizens" of Rochester, New York, the home of the Everests, was sent to Judge Haight, praying him, on account of the "untarnished fidelity and integrity" of the convicted men, to make the penalty as light as the court was authorised by law to fix. Six of the jurors were induced by Standard agents to sign a paper claiming that in their belief the jury in rendering its verdict of guilty did not mean to pronounce the Everests guilty of an attempt to blow up or burn the works of the Buffalo company, but guilty only of enticing Miller away, and ​they recommended that the sentence, therefore, be a fine and not imprisonment. District- Attorney Quinby offered to prove on a hearing for a new trial that the Standard's representatives used money in getting these affidavits. The result was that the two Everests were each fined $250. This sentence was made light, the judge explained, because of the civil suits brought to recover damages for the very same acts—a person could not be punished twice for the same offence.
The first civil suit referred to above resulted in an award by the jury of $20,000 to Matthews. The second civil suit was for $250,000, but before it was tried Matthews's business had become so involved by all this trouble that in January, 1888, it was put into the hands of a receiver. The defendants finally offered to settle the civil suits for $85,000. The judge ordered the receiver to acept the offer, on the ground that the Everests had already been declared guilty of criminal conspiracy and had been fined, and that a person could not be punished twice for the same offence!
It was not until June, 1889, that the receiver filed his account of the settlement of the affairs of the Buffalo Works. Of the $85,000 paid by the Standard, Matthews seems not to have gotten a cent. The entire sum went to settle the debts of the concern and pay the lawyers. The leading claimants amongthe lawyers were Thomas Corlett, Edward W. Hatch and Adelbert Moot, all of Buffalo. Their claims aggregated nearly $35,000. The receiver thought these fees exorbitant, and a referee was appointed by the court to take the testimony of the claimant as to their services. The testimony was voluminous, and the upshot was that the referee cut these claims to about $22,000. The final account filed by the receiver shows that the three gentlemen finally were paid about $15,000.
The large claims made by the lawyers and certain circumstances of the settlement have led the Standard, in later years, to advance a counter charge of conspiracy of much more seri​ous nature than that which they depended on in the trial. This new charge makes Matthews's counsel his fellow conspirators, and alleges that at least two of them used important official positions to influence the verdict. In the present year (1904) the Standard's official organ, the Oil City Derrick, published a supplement containing the evidence on which this counter charge is based, and editorially accused the writer of bias in not using this material in the story of the Buffalo case which was published practically as it stands here in McClure's Magazine for March, 1904. It is true, as the Derrick claims, that through the courtesy of the Standard Oil Company this material was placed in the writer's hands before the article was published. It was not used because it was not thought it established the charge.
The points brought out in the evidence published by the Derrick which are held by the Standard to establish the charge of a conspiracy between Matthews and his counsel are the following: In the first place, they declare it a conspiracy because Corlett, who was called to the bench in January, 1884, and Hatch, who was called to the bench in January, 1886, were both in consultation with their successors after they became judges. That this is true there is no doubt whatever. Mr. Moot in his full statement of his services made to the referee refers again and again to consultations with Corlett and Hatch after they had given up the case. Hatch speaks freely in his statement to the referee of counselling with Quinby and Moot. If there was an impropriety in what he did, he certainly made no effort to conceal it, nor did the referee, the court, or the receiver, to whom this statement was submitted, raise any question of impropriety. The counsel which both Judge Corlett and Judge Hatch gave Quinby and Moot they ​owed Matthews. They had been his counsel for years. They were obliged to give up his cases because of their election to the bench. They were debarred by their relation to the case, of course, from hearing it, but there was no reason why their knowledge and experience should not be drawn upon to a reasonable degree by the new attorneys. Certainly this is a universal practice in law courts. It is difficult to see how it could be otherwise. If either judge had used his position to influence his fellow judge who heard the case there would be a just criticism, but no such intimation has ever been made, to the writer's knowledge.
The second proof of conspiracy drawn from this testimony to the referee is the statements of both Hatch and Moot that they had no contracts for compensation and that they knew they would receive nothing if they lost. For instance, when Moot was examined by the referee he was asked:
Q. Did you have any contract or agreement as to how you should be compensated?
A. Not the slightest. I never had such a contract in my life, except that I should be liberally paid if I succeeded. If I did not succeed, the party being poor, my work would be without compensation…
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Matthews or with any officer of the company with reference to that?
A. No, sir. I feel very clear that I never had a conversation with a single member of this company about what we should receive for our services, except to this extent: Mr. Matthews once said, in referring to or commenting on these litigations, that they were like any other independent company, as I very well knew; that if the lawyers could not keep them alive with litigation, the Standard would beat them—we would not get anything.
Judge Hatch in his statement said: "Matthews and I or any one for his company never had any talk with respect to compensation for services at the time of their commencement or during their rendition. I knew, however, that the payment for services was largely contingent upon the success of the litigation, and the company was not able to pay much more ​than the actual expenses in the event they failed to succeed, and that we would get a very meagre compensation unless we succeeded in the actions. I think no conversation was ever had except Mr. Matthews stating that if we should succeed we should be well paid. I think he mentioned that once or twice."
It is not an unusual thing for lawyers to take cases they believe just, knowing that their compensation depends on their winning. Many clients with just cases would be deprived of counsel if they had to insure a fixed compensation, for not infrequently all that a client has is involved in a suit. The practice is so common among reputable lawyers that it certainly cannot be regarded as a proof of a conspiracy, unless there is a reason to suppose that they have taken a case of whose merits they themselves are suspicious. There is absolutely no evidence that Matthews's counsel were not convinced from the first that they had a strong case. Quinby, the district-attorney who tried the criminal case, certainly conducted it with a fire and a logic which nothing but conviction could have inspired. Moreover, it must be remembered that these attorneys never failed to convince the juries before whom they appeared of the merits of their case. Four juries, two grand juries and two petit juries gave unanimous verdicts of conspiracy against the defendants in the course of the litigation. A case backed by evidence which would convince such diversified bodies of men could hardly be called a speculation. Their claims were large, but lawyers are not proverbial for the modesty of their charges, and in the cases of Hatch and Moot, the two making the largest claims, the labour had been very great and had extended over long periods, as one can see who will examine the testimony published by the Derrick; and besides, exorbitant charges can hardly be construed as a proof of conspiracy.
This, then, in outline, is the history of the case on which are based all charges, so far as the writer knows, that the ​Standard Oil Company has deliberately destroyed property to get rid of rivals. The case is of importance not only as showing to what abuses the Standard policy of making it hard for a rival to do business will lead men like the Everests, but it shows to what lengths a hostile public will go in interpreting the acts of men whom it has come to believe are lawless and relentless in pursuing their own ends. The public, particularly the oil public, has always been willing to believe the worst of the Standard Oil Company. It read into the Buffalo case deliberate arson, and charged not only the Everests, but the three co-directors, with the overt acts. They refused to recognise that no evidence of the connection of Mr. Rogers, Mr. Archbold and Mr. McGregor with the overt acts was offered, but demanded that they be convicted on presumption, and when the judge refused to do this they cursed him as a traitor. To-day, in spite of the full airing this case has had in the courts and investigations, Judge Haight is still accused of selling himself to a corporation, and Mr. Rogers is accused daily in Montana of having burned a refinery in Buffalo. As a matter of fact, no refinery was burned in Buffalo, nor was it ever proved that Mr. Rogers knew anything of the attempts the Everests made to destroy Matthews's business.
* ↑ Proceedings in Relation to Trusts, House of Representatives, 1888. Report Number 3,112, page 864.
* ↑ Proceedings in Relation to Trusts, House of Representatives, 1888. Report Number 3,112, page 864.
* ↑ The Derrick published in a four-page supplement to the issue of April 23, 1904, the full text of both statements under the title "More of Tarbell's Tergiversations."