The citizen. (Frederick City, Md.) 1895-1923, 1899-05-12
CHAS. B. SQUIRE ACCUSED
Monnett Says That He, Repre-
senting Oil Trust, Of
fered Him 100000.
SQUIRE FLATLY DENIES.
Frank Rockefeller, Colonel Haskell
and F. B. Squires Also Implicat-
ed in the Statement.

Sensational Results Are Promised From
Ohio Attorney Generals Answer to tho
Standard-Hs Concurs in the Request
of Defendant That the Court Appoint
Commission to Take the Legal Testimony
Columbus, Ohio. May 11.-Atorney-
General Monnett named the men said
to have offered him bribe of $780,
600 to drop the prosecution he insti-
tuted and has been vigorously press
ing against the Standard Oil Company
in Ohio. The men he named are
Charles b. Squire. +. B. Squires,
Frank Rockefeller and Charles n.
Haskell
f. b. Squires, who is no relation to
Charles B. Squire, the alleged go-be-
tween. is secretary of the Standard
Oil Company. and lives near Cleve-
land.
Attorney General Monnett filed his
astonishing statement in the Supreme
Court 1t was in answer to a demand
filed in the same court by Virgil p.
Kline and Mortimer f. Elliott, at
torneys for the Standard. that he name
the men he charged with attempting
to bribe him.
In his answer, the Attorney General
says:
"The motion having been made to be
heard on May IS, the Attorney Gen
eral valves The length of time and
asks for an immediate hearing. He
concurs in the request of the defend
ant, that the court appoint a commits
sion to take the legal testimony which
bears upon the truth of such charges
as are set forth in the complaint, or
that such testimony may be taken in
any other mode that this court may
deem eXpedient.
1.-THE plaintiff had no means OF
bringing the defendant into court in
contempt without an order from this
Court, but The same having been
waived by the entry of appearance ny
this motion and 10 avoid delay, plain
tiff complies with the demands of the
motion so far as he is able. The At
tOrney General cannot comply with
the first request, requiring the plain-
tiff to name the person who requested
the Hon. Daniel J. Rvan but the same
can be had through legal process un-
der the orders of this Court from
witnesses who have the knowledge
thereof
1.-The plaintiff cannot comply with
the second request of the Standards
attorneys, compelling Hon ID. X. Wat
son former Attorney GeneraD to fury1-
iSh the names of parties who made the
offers and representations in said COM
plaint set forth, but the same can he
obtained under an order from this
Court from witnesses who have such
information.
"As to the third request. in the mo-
ton addressed to the Attorney Gen.
eral. to name the party who had the
conversations with him, and to name
parties connected Herewith, repre-
sentiDg the Standard Oil Company,
the Attorney General says that the
party calling him up from Cleveland,
and the party making the proposition
set forth in the complaint was Charles
Il. Squire. formerly of Cleveland, now
of New York city, and the stakeholder
and officer representing the Standard
Oil Company that Charles b. Squire
claimed were the parties, and through
whom the proposition had in some
way come to MIN, were Frank Rookie
feller of Cleveland stockholder of
the Standard Oil Company; +. Il.
SQulTeS, ScCIeIiIy vi lhC cthhuaIu -"
Company, and Charles N. Haskell, late
Of New York city"
The Attorney General says that to
ascertain in what way Charles b.
Squire received his communications
from the above parties, the State will
be compelled to take testimony under
an order Of this Court.
"The only agent or employe of the
Standard Oil Company" the Attorney