New-York tribune., 1905-07-12
They also said in another paragraph:

1t is quite evident from the testimony that When
this entered into neither party UNDER
stood that the relation between them was such that
but b PMhn haa Very ne fsW weeks S % the
was executed the plaintiff fully advised of this
faith offered to give him the information which he
sought which would have borne upon the question
ton was within the defendants possession snS Tns
as We're accessible for the Information Of the stock
holders but the plaintiff saw fit not to avai hiseir
of this means of information.
In conclusion the lawyer makes the plea that:
There could be no more complete answer, nor
from a more authoritative source, TO the In
situations Of the article in question rejecting
on Mr.. Rockefeller's fairness and integrity in
this transaction. His treatment OF these cer-
tifcates. after he acquired them, fully corrobor-
ates this view of the arbitrators and shows
that he did not purchase for the purpose of hold
ing. ne at once put the certificates upon the
market, and within ninety days he had sold
nearly half of them at prices very slightly ad-
vanced beyond that at which he bought, and
continued TO sell as the market would absorb
his offering until all were disposed OF.
Other trustees testified during the trial that
they had sold large blocks of stock at the same
or lesser prices at about the same time
When the award had been made and this
vindication of Mr.. Rockefeller reached the
plaintiff undertook to repudlate 1t; and ii there
fore became necessary, in order to secure the
entry of judgment as agreed, TO file supple
mental answer in the Common Pleas Court and
litigate the validity of the award OF the arbi-
traitors through to the Supreme Court. In each
instance, the Common Pleas Court, Circuit Court
and Supreme Court, without dissenting
voice affirmed the proceedings of the arbitrators
and ordered judgment TO be entered in accord
ance herewith.
MISS TARBELL REPLIES.
Miss Tarbell was seen at her home last even
ing. and an opportunity to answer the state
ment If she saw fit was given to her.
After twice reading it carefully, and in part
three and even four times. she said she had
reply make to the legal findings of Mr..
Rockefelier's attorney. She added:
He is right in saying that his client won his
Case-legaly He is right in saying that
made up my case from the pleadings filed by
Mr. Corrigan. But he Is not right in insnuating
that l confined myself to the plaintiffs COM
plant brief l had access to, and made
use of, all of the correspondence in the case and
all of the peadings, and l made my arraign-
ment of Mr.. Rockefeller from these pleadings
and this correspondence taken whole.
But fear that after all Mr.. Kline and are
with the legal status of the case and with the
ethical He naturally proclaims with a tri-
umphant blast of trumpets, the fac that his
client Won,
But is there nothing to all this but the legal
rights concerned? To me the interesting and
important side not touched upon by the
gentlemen before whom the question Of Cor
rigans Indebtedness to Rockefeller was proved.
There was higher point at issue In the de-
cisiOn it was deemed necessary to separate the
moral law from the business law, and ii is for
legal right that l arraigned this man. who has
dealt unfairly with his o!dtime friend.
Mr. Rockefeller boasts that he Is a great
Christian. and I judge him. I have the right
TO do, the ethics that enter into the case.
judge him by the rule that his own faith lays
down-by the rule upon which The religion he
processes is built-the golden rule of all just
and good living.
No, despite Mr.. KIine's clever and convincing
brief, my sympathes still remain with the man
who ruled out Of court, with the man who
was most unfairly dealt with