Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1899-03-01

hihbSt tuc OhC WfehOob pAaSSu Oh bhS
stand, for contempt when he declined
10 answer Attorney General Monhett's
questions, acting on the advice Of
Messrs. Kline and Neal, his attorneys.
The contention of the attorneys for
the Standard Oil Company was that
the Notary had no right to take depo-
sitions In this case, inasmuch as the
Supreme Court had appointed Master
Commissioner, Mr.. Brinsmade, before
whom all testimony and deposftions
must be taken. Mr.. Jennings is still
in the custody of the Court for his re-
fusal to answer questions propounded
to him when placed on the stand as a
witness in the contempt against the
Standard Oil Company, and the Su-
preme Court is expected to decide the
matter tomorrow morning.
The testimony offered by Mr.. Rice
did not produce any thing Of value at
the morning session of the Commits
sioner's Court, as Mr.. Kine's persis-
tent objections were largely sustained
by the Master Commissioner. In many
instances Mr. Rice was permitted to
testify, and Mr.. Kline registered an OBJ
lection. Mr.. Brinsmade announced
that he would decide later upon the
competency of the testimony offered
in the light of other testimony to be
produced by the star witness for the
state.
After a series OF questions, tending
to show that Mr.. Rice had himself
been a producer of refined oil in this
state, and knew of the cost of produc-
ing and refining it, he was asked by
Attorney e. B. Kinkead, who with the
assistance OF Attorney General Mon
nett conducted the examination for
the state. what he knew of the busi-
ness methods Of the Standard Oil Trust
especially with regard to sitting COM
petition. Immediately there was a
vigorous objection to the competency
of the testimony to be ELECTED by this
question, which Mr.. Kinkead met by
the declaration that he proposed to
show that the Standard had not obey
ed the order of the Court, and was still
maintaining a virtual monopoly. The
Commissioner ruled this question out,
but permitted the witness to tell brief
ly of his own experience.
Whenever shipped carload of oil
to customers the Standard would rush
in other oil and undersell me, as long
as my oil was on the market" said
Mr.. Rice. "My customers were in
timidated by threats of boycott, and
many time have l received letters
and kilograms countermanding the or
ders which had been made in writing.
The men themselves told me that they
dared not oppose the Standard by buy
ing my oil, for fear of the threatened
boycott. In the end my business was
ruined"
At this point Mr.. Kline interrupted
with the objection that Mr.. Rice's
knowledge of the causes which broke
up his business had been only hearsay.
He had no actual proof that these GUS
toners had told him the truth when
they gave the reason alleged for coun-
termanding the orders. Attorney Gen
eral Monnett insisted that it had been
bit OF personal experience, rather
than hearsay, but Commissioner Brins-
made ruled out mir. Rice's answer.
Later he was permitted to tell some
what of the value of the property of
the Standard Trust, declaring it was
worth not less than the immense sum
of $500, 0,000,0 900, while on the capitaliz-
alton the trust had paid Within the
past seven years so per cent in divi-
dends. A large part of Mr.. Rice's tes-
timony merely threshed over old straw
however, which has been thoroughly
covered in the past.
In response to questions from Mr..
Kinkead, Mr.. Rice said that the cost
of shipping oil by pipe line was not
more than five cents per barrel. The
cost of refining oil was from &c to Ac
per gallon. A given quantity of crude
oil would produce so per cent refined
oil. The other - per cent went to gas
oIlne, naphtha and residuum. From
what he knew of the conditions of the
oil business in Ohio, he would say that
oil could be produced and sold profit
ably in refined condition for three or
four cents per gallon.
AS matter of fact it was being sold
Liza H= {