Sistersville oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1896-1901, 1898-10-19
ON THE TRACK.
Buckeye State Officials are Prob
ing the Standard.
AGAINST HIS WILL HE is
Forced to Admit Some Things
About the Standard Trust

New York, Oct. IA commits
sion representing the state and su-
preme court of Ohio has arrived In
this city for the purpose Of exam
ing the officers and books OF the
Standard Oil company. The hrst
session of the commission was held
yesterday, and John d. Rockefeller
was the first witness
The efforts against the Standard
Oil company in Ohio have been go.
ing on since early in 1892, when
the first case was brought before
the courts. It is now contended
that, contrary to the orders by the
supreme court Of Ohio, the COM
pany has continued to do busiaess
within that state, to control the
stocks of the absorbed companies,
and to pay dividends. On this
ground the attorney general OF
Ohio brought suit in November,
1897, charging the Standard Oil
company with contempt of court.
Speaking OF the present proceed
inqs, Mr.. Brinsmade, a member of
the commission, said:
t'Some time prior to March, 1892,
the State of Chic commenced an
action against the Standard Oil
company on the ground that it had
abused its corporate franchise by be-
coming party to an agreement that
was against public policy. 1t was
stated that an agreement existed
known as the STANDARD Trust
Agreement" dated January 2, 1882,
wherein it was agreed that corpora
tions to be known as the Standard
Oil companies of the various states
should be formed, and that all the
property and the business OF all
the corporations and partnerships
absorbed by the trust should be
vested in the several Standard Oh
companies and that the stocks of
the latter companies should be held
in trust by certain trustees.
"The case came up for decision
on March 2, 1892, when Judge
Marshall held that the defendant
should be deprived ofpower to per.
form this agreement. He further
held that if any of the corporations
concerned should recognize the
transfer of shares made on its stock
books to the trustees of the trust,
or should pay dividends to them in
stead of to the rightful owners of
the shares, or should permit the
trustees to vote on shares SO held by
them in the election of directors,
that company must be regarded as
forming an agreement in violation
of the judgment of the court.
In November, 1897, The attor-
ney general of Ohio field informa-
tion with the supreme court OF
Ohio charging the Standard Oil
company with contempt in viola
ton of the orders of the court. The
Standard Oil company has answer
ed the charge with sweeping de-
nial. The company alleges that it
has been doing all in its power to
carry out the mandates of the court.
Testimony is to be taken in this
city as to whether the Standard Oil
company has in any way violoted
the order of the court.
The defence held that all the tes-
timony given in the proceedings
before the OhioQ supreme court
formed part of the present case,
and that it was unnecessary to go
over the same ground again. Mr..
Flagg and Attorney General Mon
nett, on the other hand, contended
that the contempt proceedings now
pending were distinctly different
and required a separate record.
The first object of the state, the at
torney general explained, was to
show that the defendant had full
knowledge of the content and sig
nifcance of the judgment rendered
against him.
Mr.. Rockefeller was asked
whether meeting of the directors
of the Ohio company had been held