Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1905-07-16
WATERS PIERCE COMPANY
OWNERSHIP sTANoAso OIL, COMPANY INDICATE, ey AR
TcLEs OF KANSAS CITY INQUIRY
-AeENTs TESTIFY OF STATES TO FLEECE The
PEOPLE,

| al tlCies vi association, Showing the
ownership of Waters-Pi.rc Oil Com
pany stock by the Stendar. Oil Trust
which caused so long an argument
yesterday afternoon, We're admitted
this morning by former Judge R. A.
Anthony, special commissioner, wnen
the hearing CT the states case against
the Standard OIL compaty was re-
sumed at 11:30 o'elcck this morning
At the Coates House
tn the articles was also admit
ted an affidavit signed by Edward p
: Pratt, filed with the secretary Of state
CT Missouri. showing thrt the Stand,
ard Oil company succ aedsd to the
, property and business of the ccneoli-
dated Tank Line company in 'Se..
The articles of association referred
tc' showed that so percent If the
Waters Pierce stock was owned Ly
the Standard trust, which was dis
solved by the supreme court of 1892.
and later by individuals.
he return of the attorneys for the
Oil companies on the motion filed by
Attorney General Hadley 20 compel
the Waters Pierce company to pro
duce certain contracts aDd corres.
pondence was filed this morning.
The state demands the production
otc l,Ir
Pierce Oil commany and the Consol.-
dated Tank Line company. both al
legged to be subidiares of the Stand
ard, showing the division of terri
tory in Missouri.
It also demands the correspondence
between the defendants, Standard
and Water-Pierce Oil companies, to
prove the allegations cf the state that
the orders received from the territory
of one company by the other were
turned over to the company controll-
ing sales in that territory.
1t is alleged by the state, and has
been shown in testimony. that if the
Standard received an order from Wat
ers-Pierce tirritOy it was turned over
to the latter company and vice
versa.
Another motion is for the produc
ton of reports of the amout of oil
lands sid by the Waters-Pierce Oil
company to Nc. 26 Broadway, New
York. headquarters CT the Standard
and Republic oil companies.
The reply of the company alleges
that the motion seeks to compel the
defendant companies to produce evi
dence against itself in a quasicrim
inal proceeding against its constitu
tioual rights.
The interesting feature of the hear
ing this morning was the testimony
of former agent of the Standard
Oil company. in Kansas City. that
he learned what competing oil COM
panies were doing by having arrange,
ments' with clerks in railroad-freight
offices. Sc that he knew the names of
shippers and consignees, and at once
put Standard statesmen on the track
CT the business.
Edward p Pratt. fire-insurance
agent of Kansas City. was the first
witness this morning, when the hear.
ing was resumed at 1880 O'Clock.
In 1886 he says he began the Oil
business in Des Moines with Schc'
field. Schurmer and Teagle and one
other man. as the Des Moines Tank
Line company.
This company was sold to tho
Standard Oil company in 1890. and
in 1892 Mr.. Pratt came to Kansas
CITY as manager of the Consolidated
Tank.I.ine company He had chafee
nj the territory assigned to that com
rany. part of Missouri. and a part
c.f Kansas.
The line of demarkation OF terri
tory between the Consolidated ana
the Waters Pierce company was clear
X defined. each selling only IN It's
Wn field.
He learned of this. he said, when
ha came To- Kansas City from map
marked by a former employe OF the
Standard Oil company. This map was
introduced in evidence.
Judge Johnson. fer the Waters
pierce Oil company, objected to the
map and to all of Mr. Pra'' eesm aoa
monv touching events prior to 1890
when the defense says, new waters
pierce company was organized his
objection was overruled.
, Mr. Pratt said he left the consoh'
a rort.Iina company in 1896