Sistersville oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1896-1901, 1898-11-23

respective productions. A division
order is an agreement as to royalty
to be paid the-owners of the work
ing interests, filed with the com
pany. By these division orders the
credits are fgureds Witness stated
oil was delivered to the Indiana
Pipe Line company, and that he
supposed the latter line delivered 1t
to Whiting, Ind. The relations
between the two lines so far as the
delivery of oil is concerned, is the
same now as it was prior
to the change in the Indiana di-
vision about November last. Wit
ness said he knew nothing about
whom the producers sell their oil
to. He said he knew of Mr.. Nc
Laughlin purchasing oil as one of
Joseph Seep's agents. Said the
Buckeye Pipe Line company only
transported the oil in the accord
ance with the orders of the ship
pers. Mr.. H. G. Scheide has charge
Of the department directing the
transportation of oil. He orders
the oil stored in tanks or taken from
them for delivery. Mr.. Scheide re-
ports to the witness, but does not
report by whom such oil IS or has
been purchased. Witness said he
was stakeholder in the Buckeye
Pipe Line company. but was not
in the Solar Refining or Standard
Oil company. Witness did not
know what the constituent COM
panies of the old Standard Oil trust
were when the names OF the various
companies were mentioned by Mr..
Monnett. He stated that he was
not stockholder in either. He at
some time has been classed as an
agent of the Union Tank Line COM
pany, as he looked after the ship
ment OF oil for that company both
here and in Olean, N. Y. Was not
employed nor.paid by that company.
Witness was then asked who the
directors of the Pipe Line company
were. He replied that Messrs.
Bates, Mclaughlin. H. H. Rogers,
Daniel O'Day and himself were di-
rectors of that company and in reply
to another question, stated that, to
the best of his recollection, himself,
together with M. B. Daley and Mr..
Rogers, of Toledo; John Tonkin, c.
N. Payne and E. Strong, of Oil
City, and possibly Daniel O'Day,
were directors of the. Northwestern
Natural Gas company.
REFUSED TO ANSWER.
"Who owns the majority of the
stock and controls this board OF dl'
rectors?" asked the attorney gen
eral.
The counsel for the defendant
company promptly objected to the
question and requested the witness
not to answer.
'Upon what grounds" asked the
attorney general.
"You are attempting to establish
proof of violation of the statutes
In which this witness would be
liable under the law as an agent,
and l think it only fair that we are
permitted to not answer the ques-
tion," replied attorney Wheeler.
do you refuse to answer the
question:" asked Mr.. Monnett of
the witness.
Upon the advice of the attorney,
I do" replied Mr.. O'Day.
"Mr. Notary" said the attorney
general, motioning to Mr.. Nef,
"you will enforce the order"
"Read the question again." re
quested Mr.. Neff of the stenograph
er.
The question was read again and
attorney Wheeler objected again
and stated as grounds tor the o0Jec'
ton that it might tend to criminate
the witness.
II have already secured informa-
ton upon the matter from Mr..
Rockefeller" said Mr.. Monnett,
"and will give my word that I am
not here to prosecute the agents,
whatever may be proven to estab-
lish the charge that he is the agent
of that trust. What do you now
say to the question, Mr.. O'Day?'
II refuse to answer upon the ad-
vice of counsel, because it may
tend to criminate me-" replied the
witness.
1--WE expect to prove by the
answer of the witness" said Mr..
Monnett, for the stenographer's
record "that the Standard Oil Co