The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-03-22
RICE EXAMINED AGAIN
STANDARD OIL TRUST CHARGED
WITH running COMPETITORS.
Baltimore & Ohio Road Said to Have
Been I'm the COnspiracy-Hearin
at New York Concluded.

NEW YORK, March 2.-The hearing in
the case of the State of Ohio ex rel. +. s.
Monnett, attorney general. against the
Buckeye Pipe Line Company. of Lima. o..
was resumed to-day in the office of Charles
Edgar Mills. sitting special commissioner.
attorney General Monnett conducted his side
of the case. Messrs. Elliott and Kline ap-
peared for the company. II was expected
that the State of Ohio would present repre-
sentatives Of three or four important oil re-
fners Of Ohio TO give information as to he
alleged arbitrary methods of the pipe com
pany. Before the proceedings opened Mr..
Aonnett announced that he had been unable
20 secure those witnesses, and after a brief
reorganization OF George Rice he would
close his case for the time being. Mr.. Mon
nett explained that he was informed that
while the local courts could compel the at
tendance of his witnesses they could not
punish them IT they refused to testify.
The proceedings against the pipe line COM
pany are TO secure an annulment of its
charter on the grounds that the company has
violated the antitrust law of Ohio and that
- defiance of the law 1t is still member of
the Standard Oil Trust. The purpose OF call
ing Mr.. Rice to-day was to allow him to tes-
tify in contradiction Of the statement made
by John ID. ArchboId that he had attempted
20 blackmaI the Standard Oil Company by
demanding $4,000 for his oil properties
which were worth about $4,000.
Mr.. Rice. replying to the attorney gen.
erals invitation that he make a statement,
read from a lengthy manuscript. 1T is
true" he said, that in 1885, on their solicit
tation, did submit a proposition TO sell all
of my oil properties-rot only my refinery,
but production as well-for the sum stated"
Mr.. Rice quoted from letters of Mr.. Arch
bold, alreaGy published, to show that the
Standard Oil Company had his proposition
under consideration. The Standard Oil Com
pany, Mr.. Rice said, by its control of the
railroads had raised the freight rates so that
81 was impossible for him TO carry on his
business. I'm 1885,, he said, "the Baltimore
q Ohio and its Southwestern connections
raised their freight rates on me from 30 to
s. per cent and none the Standard Oil
Trust, which closed up fourteen of my
and shut me out Of over half the towns in
which was doing business"
Replying to question by Mr.. MOnnett,
Mr.. Rice gave the date of the occurrences
OF which he was complaining as early in
1851 and 1852. He admitted that the Buckeye
Pipe Line Company was not organized until
1885. In concluding his statement Mr.. Rice
said he could prove that the Standard OIL
Company has secretly blackmailed the rail-
roads of this country of millions of dollars
on rebate of freight.
When he had finished counsel for the pipe
line company asked him If the prepared
statement he had read from did not contain
the same testimony he had given in Column
bus. Mr.. Rice said that in substance Ii was
the same. He said he was testifying In the
present proceedings because he wanted an
opportunity for contradiction of the false
and malicious statement made by John ID.
Archbold."
rs il not a fact" asked Mr.. Kline that
In 1890 you sent TO the Standard Oil Com
pany. through Mr.. Oryis. an offer to accept
10000 for all your oil properties, agreeing
II the offer was accepted to abandon ntiga-
tion?"
Yes. I guess did"
Mr.. Rices testimony to the same effect
given at the hearing in Columbus was read
TO him and he said II was correct.
Replying TO Mr.. Kline Mr.. Rice said that
IN 1879 he offered to sell his refinery TO ex-
Senator Campbell for so, 600. That offer did
not include any OF his oil properties. When
he offered to sell his property later IL in
Guided 300 acres OF oil land, production of
20 barrels OF oil a day and a quantity of
expensive machinery.
Mr.. Monnett asked counsel IL they OBJ
1ected TO producing the officers OF the pipe
he had nothing TO say on that subject The
attorney general, he said, had power TO
compel the attendance OF witnesses Mr.
Monnett replied that he knew he could get
the witnesses, but as he could not compel
them to testify in this State he had not APP
pealed 10 the courts. With that statement
1ir. Monnett declared the proceedings closed
for the time being
When the original complaint was served
on the defendant company thirty interroga-
torres were attached to il. The Company en-
tered demurrer TO the Undergraduates II
the courts decide that questions must be
answered no further hearing will be neces-
eary. Should the courts sustain the de-
summoned TO testify in order that their re-
fuSal may show in the minutes.