The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-03-19


NEW YORK, March 18-The hearing
in the case Of the attorney general of
Ohio against the Standard Oil company
was continued here today, with John D.
Archbold, of the Standard Oil company,
on the stand. Mr.. Archbold, replying to
Mr.. Monet. said the Standard Oil COM
pany of Ohio. is carrying out the order
of the Ohio court to withdraw from the
Standard Oil trust, as speedily as posi-
BILE.
WAS not the entire interest Of the
hauidating trustees committed to one
Attorney" asked Attorney Flagg, for the
complainant, land did he not vote for all
their interests In the stockholders meet
ings?'
The hquidating trustees" he said,
have never voted since the dissolution
Of the trust Before that they did vote
for officers of the Standard Oil COM
pany."
A number of other questions were ask
ed as to the duties of the liouidating
trustees, and then Mr.. Kline, for the
Standard Oil company, objected to Mr..
Flagg asking questions after the attor-
ney general had completed his examina-
ton. Commissioner Brinsmade ruled that
only one lawyer should conduct the CROSS
examination.
Did the officers of the company make
any reports Of the board Of trustees of
the trust company, after the decree Of
1892" asked Mr.. Monet.
Il object said Mr.. Kline.
Commissioner Brinsmade told Mr. Arch
bold to reply, and he answered.:
II don't know what he means, and
don't think he does
did the defendant company know Of
ficiaily of the meeting of March q, 1892
when the trust was dissolved?' asked Mr.
Monet.
II don't know" replied Mr.. Arehbold.
II suppose some of us knew about 1t, In
dividually.'
did the company oppose in any way
that resolution?
Whatever. action was taken by the
company was in careful compliance with
the ruling of the court
s'You evidently did not understand the
question: remarked Mr.. Monet.
well, I'm not to blame for that said
Mr.. Archbold, and he requested his an
swer stand, when the question was re-
peated:
WAS not the defendant company pres
ent at that meeting by some of it's stock
owners?"
Doubtless some of the stock owners
were present. 1 don't see any sense in
the question"
Nearly every question asked was met by
an objection from counsel. Mr.. Monet
tried to show by the witness that the
Standard Oil company was as effectively
represented at the meeting of March
a. 1892, as 1t was at the formation Of the
trust In 1882, but he could not frame
question proof against the objections Of
the counsel, and the ruling Of the COM
missioner. At last he gave up the at
tempt, and asked:
ITO your knowledge has any act or
effort been made by the defendant COM
pany to disentangle itself from the
trust, except to fall In with the resolu-
ton passed on March 81, 1922"
1.-The company Is absolutely disentan-
gled from the trust, and it has done no
act not in accord with absolute disentan-
clement from the trust
DETAILS LACKING.
what has the defendant company
done to disentangle itself from the
trust?" asked the attorney general.
ut has been managed entirely indie
pendently Of any suggestion from 1t, and
apart from it. 1t has acted entirely in
accordance with the order of the supreme
court of Ohio
Mr.. Monet took up the Archbold state
ment of yesterday that the effect Of the
selling at once Of the trust certificates
by the Hquidating trustees would have
been disastrous to the business general
ly and to the small shareholders who
could not have protected themselves
Mr.. Monet asked what shareholders
were meant.
.'Holders Of certificates Of the Stand
ard OIL trust"
Mr.. Archbold said yesterday that such
a sale would have thrown thousands of
laborers out of employment, and he was
asked how that would result.
Amy disturbance In the trade, and any