New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-03-19
OIL HEARING GROWS WARM
WoRpY ENCOUNTER BETWEEN MIX
ARCHBOLD AND w l.. FLAGG'

.rIAR' USED BY BOrH-MORE DETAILS N"
ING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE OHIO
coMpANy-ExAMINATIoN TO
CONTINUE To MORROW.
The task Of taking the dispositions OF witnesses
IN tho contempt -of-court proceedings instituted
against the Standard OIL Company and John H.
Rockefeer as its president. for alleged iaiiure 10
comply with the Ohio law directing the dissoiu'ioi,
~ the Standard on Trust OF Ohio. was contihueu
Yesterday in the Hoffman House. Allan T. brihs-
mead who was appointed by the Supreme Court
Of Ohio as master. presided. The state OF oh'o
u,as renresented by Frank 5. Monet Attorney
General CT that State; his brother-in-iaw, >. W.
Rennett and w. l.. Flagg. The standard oi Coni-
many was represented by NJ +. Elliott ana Virgil
?. Kline. -, ,,
John d. Archbold of the Standard OH COMPANY
WIN on Friday accused George ID. Rice OF attempt
ing TO blackmail the company. and OF hsuga''hs
the prosecution put on the stand az the OPEN
ing of the hearing
taken up where Il was dropped on Friday. MT
Archbold replying to Mr. Monet said the stand
ard OIL Company carrying out the order OF '"e
Ohio court speedily possible
Nearly every question asked was met by an oo-
lection from counsel. Mr. Archbod appeared "
eniov the wranges Of the lawyers. and when MT
Rr,nsmead said something about fixing a day for
the further hearing Mr.. Archbold suggested 'ha'
II be held on Sunday at Boomingdae
Mr. Monet tried to show by the witness that
the Standard Oil Company was as ehectNeF rep
resented al the meeting Of March a. N.Y. as II wa,
at the formation of the trust In lS2. but ne cou'u
not frame a question that was proof against inc
objections OF counsel and the ruling OF the Comii
sioner At last he gave up the attempt along '""'
line and asked:
TO your knowledge has any act or effort been
made by the defendant company TO disen'alsie IL
self from the trust. except TO ran IN VIII" "''
resolution adopted March p. 1897!
The company is absolutely disentanged from
the trust and 1t has done nothing not IN accord
with absolute Acknowledgement from the trust
THE FIRST ENCOUNTER.
Mr. Monet said the answer WAS not responsive
and Mr. Archbold declared that 1t was the pest ne
could make He could not understand "ha' Else
he could say.
ooh YES Won can" interpolated Mr. Flagg
Mr. Archbold looked up angrly and said; GU
had better be careful l know you
Il promise you I'll be very careful" replied Mr..
Flagg.
Later Mr. Archbold again took exception 10 re-
mark Of Mr. Flagg and repeated his warning.
Are YOU talking 10 me to the reporters?
asked Mr.. Flagg.
I'm talking TO you just now" replied the wit
ness accentuating the last two words
What has the defendant company done to dis
entange itself from the trust. dSheu "i' "
torney- GeneraL
III has managed affairs entirely independent or
any suggestion rom IT and apart from 1t. II mas
acted entirely In accordance with the order OIL 'ne
Supreme Court of Ohio
WAS that the only way in which the company
could have severed its connection with the "uS'
agreement" asked Mr.. MCncti.
Il link it vas the best way
Mr. Monet took up Mr.. Archbolds statement
that the effect OF the selling AT once OF the trust
certificates by the iqudating trustees would nave
been disastrous TO the business generally ana 10
the small Shareholders who could not nave pro-
tected themselves and asked What shareholo-
ers?'
Holders of certificates of the Standard oil
Trust"
Mr. Archbold had also said that such a sale
would have thrown thousands Of laborers OUT OF
emplovment and he asked how.
ANY disturbance in the trade and any interrupt
,ion IN the production OF oil such as must have fol-
low ed sale of the stock and property would nave
been disastrous"
Several questions along the same line were ex-
cluded.
There was no reason why you could not nave
sold the stock?' asked Mr.. Monett
II do not know The method determined on was
considered the best and in strict compliance with
the order Of the Supreme Court of Ohio We were
so instructed by counsel. II was for the best IN
terest OF all concerned
oWhy not have sold the defendant company's
stock as we'll as have sold the property they were
directed to sell?" asked Mr.. Monet
Because II would have resulted in great loss 10
the smaller shareholders in the trust"
RESULT OF DISSOLUTION PLAN
When the hearing resumed after recess Mr..
Elliott announced that Mr.. Archbold would like to
answer a question that he had declined 20 answer
at the morning session. This was the question:
as II not a result OF this plan that you have
narrated Of what you called In your answer a
Ioudation that about ,hree-sevenths of the de-
PENDANTS stock is still subject to the disposal of
your Board of Trustees
eft IS not" replied Mr. Archbold After the
liquidation there was stock Of the corporation re-
manning in the hands OF the trustees elher IN lheir
hands or under their control"
While Mr. Flagg suggesting something TO
Mr.. Monet Mr. Archbold spoke 10 Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Flagg overheard part of the talk ana said.
hoty
lam not in the habit Of receiving such treatment
from witnesses"
Mr. Archbold leaned his elbows on the table and
re,orted .'Tn have something 10 say to you pres
entity Mr. Flagg"
you must have been drinking Mr. Archbold "
said Mr.. Flagg
NO / have not been drinking. l know what
am about MI Commissioner, l apologize TO you.
bur that notwithstanding Mr.. Flaeg-"is ridicu-
lous"
After a dozen questions relative 10 the earnings
n. the trust had been ruled out the ground that
the question OF earnings was not material 10 the
issue Mr.. Monet asked;
III there are any accumulated earnings not paid
ON, IN dividends do they not belong the un-
lioudated three-sevenths. or whatever that may De
as well as TO the stocks held by individuals ano
are they not so recorded on the books OF the de
PENDANT company
The question was allowed after the word in