The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-07-13

dard,' was the reply.
do you do it now?'
IF I'm after a customer Of the Stan
dard do
,s +R0n,t t., you do that with other com
No; they treat me fairly. use them
honorably."
'tAnd you use any methods necessary
to get the Standards customers?"
Yes"
"Why?"
Because the Standard has tried to
drive me off the face of the earth and
put me out of business
Mr.. Musser said Brilliant oil be-
came perfection" when it crossed the
dead line;" in other words the Waters
Pierce company sold an Illuminating oil
in its territory under one name and the
Standard sold the same oil in it's terri
tory under another name. Attorney
Johnson put Mr. MuSser through an ex-
animation as to specific gravity. fire or
flash tests of various Illuminating oils,
but gained no information of value.
In Ignorance for Years.
The testimony of Gottlieb Kuenster, OF
Maryville, No, was entertaining and
went far to show the existence of a
combination between oil companies. Mr.
! Kuenster went into the grocery BUSH
| ness in 1881 and signed a contract with
| the Consolidated Tank Line company
| at Hannibal to sell it's oil, he to receive
| dated was absorbed by the Standard,
according to testimony. Mr.. Kuenster
sold oil for the Consolidated or Standard
until 1903, about twenty-five years.
| "Once while l was its agent" said
! the German, "a man in Maryville wrote
letter to the Waters-Pierce Oil COM
| pany, trying to get it to make him its
! agent in Maryville. The writer said
I wasn't liked in Maryville and that he
| could get the business away from me-
| The Waters-Pierce people sent the let
ter to me and 1 hunted up the writer.
Here, Bill said to him, 'what're you
/ trying to do, anyway
Bill was surprised Mr.. Kuenster
continued. % God, Mr.. Gottlieb. he
cried, so help me. I didn't know those
two companies were one No one cared
| to crossexamine Mr.. Kuenster.
| The attorneys for the Standard Oil
trust were more amiable than on other
| occasions in the hearing, but they con-
! tinued to war with the attorney general
| in their effort to prove that the Stand
! ard Oil company" when the words were
used, really wasn't the Standard about
which everyone is complaining, but was
the Standard of Missouri, of Kentucky,
of Indiana, or some other state.
Only One OF the Tentaclcs.
For instance, in his testimony E. P.
Pratt had testified that the Standard
Oil company had bought up or alb
Sorbed the Consolidated Tank Line
company. Under cross examination
Mr.. Pratt said there was Standard
! Oil company of Missouri, organiZedsin
/ 1892. He was a stakeholder in it and
! was secretary. Its Office was at Brook
field, Mo. Mr.. johnson, for the re-
spondents, wanted to know If this was
, not the Standard Oil company" which
had taken over the Consolidated Tank
Line company but Mr.. Pratt said no, it
was the Standard Oil company of
Kentucky which had done that.
Mr.. Johnson used much time in
questioning the witness about the ca
pacity or "gallonage" of various tank
connected and their increase in ca
pacity from time to time. The pur-
pose of this. it developed in the course
of an hour or more, was to show that
the small, independent companies had
handled all the business for which
they had facilities and, therefore, that
the Standard, the Republic or the
Waters-Pierce Oil company did moth
ing to decrease the volume of their
trade.
Mr.. Pratt said he thought the
Waters-Pierce Oil company's illumi-
mating oil called "Eosene" was the
same as the Standards "Upian." Each
lawyer pronounced the latter name
differently and Mr.. Johnson settled the
question by saying it was as if spelled
You pian.''
1--WE have this pronunciation from
an authoritative source, now" said
Mr.. Hadley bowling to Mr.. Johnson
whereupon all smiled.
The hearing adjourned at 5:15
O'Clock. 1t will be resumed at sac
O'Clock this morning.
/