Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-02-28

& = -
WmasnsDAY uvlIngo. FEB -. lsss.
ssnsehias Very Rsttes.
One r. g. Patterson, Of Titusville.
vss employed BY the state to collect
ayidence to sustain its claim against the
Oh company for unpaid taxes.
He was to receive q commission on the
amount recovered for his services. The
testimony he collected was never used
and he never asked for compensation.
The suit Of the staSe was decided, essen
italy against the state on case stated,
which vas agreed upon between the
states counse; and the oil company.
The next public appearance of E. G.
Patterson Is as o petitioner for the ap-
polntment of receiver of the Tide
watH Pipe Line company, to the capltai
stock Of which corporation he had
originally made q subscription, but had
not paid for it, until after the decision
Of the suit of the state against the
Standard oil company. He then took
and paid for his stock, and at once asked
for the appointment of receiver of the
company, refusing to sell his stock,
though offered large premium for it.
His application was heard by Judge
Church. and was refused. Patterson
was the chief witness, and his cross ex
animation, the salient portions of which
ve iind printed in the Philadelphia
Press, threw a flood of light upon the
motive of his petition, upon the real par
ties behind it, and indicated that mys-
terious influences had prevailed to make
abortive the action of the state against
the Standard oil company.
He testiRed-after naively declaring
that he had no objection to if he must
that he received s. 500 in New York
from Mr. Archbold, of the Standard
company, on April 30th. and that on
May 1st he paid for his Tidewater stock
about $4,000. In August he received
$1,000 more from the Standard, for
which he had written to Archbold and
that the Standard still owed him $4,000.
He wrestled hard with tie questions
pressed upon him to ascertain the reason
for the payment to him Of this money
He admitted that he had been employed
by the state to furnish the evidence to
sustain its suit against the Standard,
which had been decided at the time these
payments were made to him, and that
he had followed up the work he had un
dertaken in that behalf nearly to the
end but that he had not furnished the
state with the results, or that it had moi
ayailed itself of them it is not clearly
determinable from his testimony which
of these two things we are to understand
The following is what was said by the
witness when he was got down into the
corner as closely as he could be driven
BIZ the cross-examiner
Twas in the service of the attorney gen.
eral. l was under contract with the
state. For some reason or other, which
don't know, never was able to produce
the testimony, and the testimony was
never called for by the state, that is, to
take the testimony in the usual and ordi-
,nry way. My notice was that proposed
70 attack, and the negotiation was as to
whether anybody would give as much as
there wae in nv contract with the state il
Iwould not attack.
You sent them word that you would
make an attack upon them if they did not
nav you as much as there was in your
contract with the state. Was that it A.?
No sent them word that in any ar
rangements that they had made with any
body to count me out that l was not q
party to it.
What did they say to that?
Well, then, they said to my attorney,
a. he reported to me that they wanted
peace.
linen what did you say? You might as
we'll Just come out with it.
Very we'll. The opinion Of the court
had been filed. OF course, it was very
much to my dissatisfaction. 1t left nothing
in me and had no part in the proceeding.
and I prepared to reopen it, and die
not.
Why did you not?
Simply because I was assured that
should have just as much money out o
the transaction as my original contrac;
would have paid me. My counsel mad.
the arrangement with Mr.. Archbold ant
his counsel
From which it is clear enough that Pat
terson had testimony that proved to bs
worth $14, 500 to the Standard oil com
ou.py, and that they bought it at tina
SlHSe after the state had failed in its ef
nko collect the tax assessed agains
it. bakit is not at all clear why th'
state did 1t get this testimony, wbici
wonld certainly have been equally valu
able to It, and which it had contracted
With Pattereon fpr previous to tn
Standards contract with him. Patterso,
s pretends that he does not know WIN!
the state did not get it or use it; HI
leaves it noticeably uncertain as t.
whether its officers had it and rejected
&c, or whether they did not get it. But
in this connection it will be remarked
that his notice to the Standard company
which produced bis $14, 500, was that In
had not been party to any arrangement
aud that he would open upon it if he wa
not paid for his silence.
This is clear enough intimation tha
an arrangement had been made by th'
STANDARD company with the Pennsylva
ni6onicials by which the suit of the stat