Evening star., 1901-06-19
GIVEN IN REBUTTAL
Affdavits Filed Before the Industrial
Commission.
CHARGES AGAINST THE STANDARD OIL
Allegations by Ex-Attorney Gen.
eraI Monet.
ARCHBOLD CONTRADICTED

Sweeping charges are made against the
Standard Oil and it's associate companies in
a sworn affidavit filed with the industrial
commission by former Attorney General F.
S. Monett of Ohio. Speaking of these COM
panies, Mr.. Monett says:
Each and every one have openly and no
toriously violated their charter, and have
violated the statutes Of the state. Grim
inally and civilly. and are now so violating
them, and did not dare to come into court
and answer the charges of such violation"
He charges that these companies have
interfered in the politics of the state; that
it is openly charged and not denied that
the influence of these companies defeated
Joseph c. Bradbury for the supreme court
of the state because he was supposed to
be antagonistic to them. Mr.. Monett says
that they have "openly and notoriously
evaded the taxes due the state by making
returns upon their property in many in
stances estimated at less than 10 per cent
of its real value, considering the earning
capacity of the company" He asserts that
the company has evaded instead of courted
investigation of his bribery charges, and
he adds:
Through their pipeline charges and by
means Of their monopoly in transport alton
the Standard Oil combinations continue
their monopoly In handling oil in Ohio,
every consumer of oil in this state
verify by his pocket book.
'CampaignS come and co. commissions
investigate and legislatures meet and ad-
journ, and magazine articles are written
and read, and yet, through their monopo-
listic and criminal exactions, the Standard
Oil combinations of transportation and dis
tribution thereof levy tribute upon the
owner of the oil rock and exact from the
consumer of the refined oil and it's bypro-
ducts this unnatural profit. The public are
its victims; the little band of law violators
owning the controlling shares are the bene-
ticiaries of the plunder The public for
short time stand aghast at their very bold
ness and defiance. The government alone
can check their abuses
With Mr. Monetts affidavit were also
filed similar documents by James w. Lee
of the Pure OH Company, M. L. Lockwood
and Charles b. Mathews, independent oil
refiners The affidavits were all In
buttal of the testimony given before the
commission by John D. Archbold. who
was the chief witness of the Standard Oil
Company before the industrial commission
in 1892 and had testified after the gentle
men now sending in their affidavts had
been heard.
Alleged Violation of Law.
In emphasizing his charge that the Stand
ard interests are violating the statutes of
the state, Mr. Monett incorporates in his
statement the pleading Of Henry H. Rob
erts, president of the Buckeye Line Com
pany, before the supreme court of Ohio,
in which he says that the averments in
his answer not verified because the
admission of the truth of certain facts
stated in the pleadings might subject the
defendant and it's officers to a criminal
penal prosecution, and to forfeiture of
it's charter. franchises and privileges, and
for the same reason the interrogatories are
not answered.
Enumerating other instances Of violations
nf he into lay hx-t dow
panies. Mr.. Monet continues: They ceased
to hold bona fide meetings in the state OF
Ohio of their directors and stockholders,
as required by statute: they removed their
principal place of office to 26 Broadway,
New York entered into and remained in
the Standard Oil trust by part Of the COM
panies. continuing to nourish the trust GER
tificates issued by the Standard Oil trust by
paying dividends thereon in open de-
fiance of the court for eight years; they
escaped the contempt of the court for
violating the original decree of the Stand
ard Oil Company, wherein they were ad-
Judged to have entered into the trust con-
tract Illegally, and escaped punishment in
contempt by the supreme court of Ohio
by d vote of to 3.
Oil Production in Ohio.
81 reaffirm that on their own figures as
reported to the excise board, they shipped
from the oil fields of Ohio to their vari
Gus refineries an average of upwards OF
''o'o'po'o Deiiic pei SSaA, eao eippSaAS 40
my testimony on page 81 of the records
of your commission, and that the gross
receipts for refined oil and bi-products re-
ceived by the Standard oil combination
companies from Ohio's crude oil would
reach S12O,OOOOtO a year. l did not claim,
as indicated in Archibolds reply, that any
such amount was consumed in Ohio; 1t
was the amount that was extracted from
Ohio and mostly piped out of Ohio; II
Archbold's testimony Is as represented In
it's prelude on page 543. in which he says
that the said corporations composing his
combination of companies are carefully OBJ
serving the obligations imposed upon them
by their charters 1 wish to caution the
commission against drawing any conclu-
sions or deductions from any of his evi-
dence, and his reiteration of this matter
after all has been shown in the courts by
the affidavits of their own officers, and
their conduct before the court and in the
| state legislature regarding the same is
most reprehensible.
II would like to characterize this absurd
| statement of Archbold's and his misrep-
resentation of the conduct of his COM
| panies in Ohio in much stronger rms, but
| l bow to the wish of the commission.
The Ohio Bribery Case.
| II charged them" Mr.. Monett continues,
| before the supreme court with having at
tempted to bribe the Hon. d. X. Watson,
| former attorney general, and also myself
as attorney general, fully set forth in
the complaint, and began taking testimony
to establish the fact but Mr.. Archbold
| said in his testimony on page 344 that they
| called upon the court to investigate the
| charges, and If the court did not investi-
| gate they would. On the day l began to
| take the testimony to establish every allie
| cation made in reference to the bribery In
my reach showing how the 100000 was
| offered, and showing how 100000 was Of
| fered to my predecessor, and giving all the
| Details kilograms and Intermediates. and
| all the evidence connected Herewith, when
the chief justice of the supreme court. at
| the request of the attorneys of record OF
| the Standard Oil Company. verbally or
| dered me not to take the testimony and
| the charges were thereafter dismissed by
| the court without the hearing Of any tes-
| timony on the part of the state to establish
| the same. SO that instead Of the trust