The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-03-19
MR.. MONNETT ALSO INVOLVED
RESENTED AN INTIMATION THAT
WITNESSES WE'RE HIRED.
Little Progress Made by the Ohio At
torney General in Securing the
Information He Desired.

the case of the attorney general of Ohio
against the Standard Oil Company was con-
tinued here to-day, with John d. Archbold,
of the Standard Oil Company, on the stand.
Mr.. Archbold, replying to Mr.. Monnett, said
the Standard Oil Company of Ohio is car
rying out the order of the Ohio court to
withdraw from the Standard Oil Trust as
speedily as possible.
Was not the entire interest of the liqui-
dating trustees committed to one Attorney"
asked Attorney Flagg, for the complainant.
"and did he not vote for all their interests
in the stockholders meetings?"
''The liquidating trustees" he said, have
never voted since the dissolution of the
trust. Before that they did vote for officers
of the Standard Oil Company"
A number of other questions were asked
as to the duties of the liquidating trustees,
and then Mr.. Cline, for the Standard Oil
Company, objected to Mr.. Flagg asking
questions after the attorney general had
completed his examination.
Commissioner Brinsmade ruled that only
one lawyer should conduct the cross-ex-
animation.
Did the officers of the company make
any reports to the board of trustees of the
trust company, after the decree of 1892"
asked Mr.. Monnett.
II object" said Mr.. Cline
Commissioner Brinsmade told Mr.. Arch
bold to reply, and he answered: Il don't
know what he means, and don't think he
does"
Did the defendant company know off,
cially of the meeting of March q, 1892, when
the trust was dissolved?' asked Mr.. Mon
nett
Il don't know" replied Mr.. Archbold Il
suppose some Of us knew about it indvidu-
ally"
Did the company oppose in any way that
resolution"
Whatever action was taken by the COM
pany was in careful compliance with the
ruling of the court
QUESTION EVADED.
"You evidently did not understand the
question" remarked Mr.. Monnett.
well, I'm not to blame for that" said
Mr.. Archbold, and he requested that his an
swer stand when the question was repeated.
WAS not the defendant company present
at that meeting by some of its stock own
ers?"
Doubtless, some of the stock owners
were present don't see any sense in the
question"
Nearly every question asked was met by
an objection by counsel. Mr.. Monnett tried
to show by the witness that the Standard
Oil Company was as effectively represented
at the meeting of March q, 1892, as it was
at the formation of the trust in 1882. but he
could not frame a question proof against
the objections of the counsel and the ruling
of the commissioner. AT last he gave up the
attempt and asked: Ito your knowledge,
has any act or effort been made by the de-
fendant company to disentangle itself from
the trust. except to fall in with the reso-
luton passed on March q, 1892
THE company is absolutely disentangled
from the trust and it has done no act not
in accord with absolute disentanglement
from the trust"
What has the defendant company done
TO disentangle itself from the trust?" asked
the attorney general.
1T has managed entirely independently
of any suggestion from 1t and apart from
1t. 1t has acted entirely in accordance
with the order of the Supreme Court of
Ohio"
WAS that the only way in which the
company could have covered its connec-
ton with the trust agreement" asked Mr..
Monnett.
II think il was the best way
Mr.. Flagg suggested several questions
and the commissioner reminded him Of the
ruling that only one attorney should con-
duct the cross-examination, and Mr.. Flagg
appealed in vain TO Mr.. Cline. Then he
suggested that he dictate the questions and
that Mr.. Monnett should ask them.
Commissioner Brinsmade decided that he
could not sanction that way of whipping
the devil round the stump and recess of
five minutes was taken that counsel for the
prosecution might hold a consultation.
SALE OF CERTIFICATES.
When counsel returned to the hearing,
Mr. Monnett took up Mr.. Archbolds state
ment of yesterday. that the effect Of the
selling at once of the trust certificates by
the liquidating trustees would have been
disastrous TO the business generally and to
the shareholders who could not have pro-
tected themselves. Mr.. Monnett asked what
shareholders were meant.
Holders of certificates of the Standard
Oil Trust" was the reply.
Mr.. Archbold said yesterday that such
sale would have thrown thousands of la
borers out of employment, and he was asked
how that would result.
ANY disturbances in the trade and any
Interruption In the production of oil. such
as must have followed sale OF the stock
and property, would have been disastrous. ("
he said.
Several questions along the same line
were excluded, despite the protestations of
counsel that they were asked to show the
animus OF the defendant company.
There was no reason why you could not
have sold the stocks?' asked Mr. Mounett
II do not know. The method determined