The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-01-15
5 FuLT,
\ CLAIM! HADLEY
b 0'Aares SensatiGalism Due to
|s Oil Magnate'Slippant
VI A''''"e:
hRT CROWD LUDLY
I CHEERS TIL SENTIMENT
TT Has Not Yet Decided
Whether Rofrs Shall
(. Answer QustiOns.

w YORK, Jan. -lhe nearing Oh
nj nent on the oution whether H.
%ngers shall be capelled to answer
,pestfons asked b Attorney General
>ey Of Missouri W adjourned today
Monday morninaafter counsel had
/. nted some Of tho arguments. JUS
'Sildersleeve did It give any decis-
10 whether MI Rogers must an
Rogers's Forul Answer.
s.liam v. Rowe I'd the formal an
tof bfr. Rogers, (which he asserted
the questions al immateriaI, that
,Fouestion Of thd admissibility is
Ine In the MIssou courts. that there
- legal authority for tho hearing
a Mr.. Hadley b, been holding In
city and that e questions were
asked for purposef public policy but
lin notoriety for 1r. Hadley 1t In
I'd also the comfint that photog-
crs and artists ere given a free
at the hearing.
Says It's Innaterial.
INK Hagerman oikansas City. rep
ting the three Rpondent oil COM
Is, said the attept to discover the
ownership OF u respondent CON.
~ was immeteris
\ Rdney-General Hdley brought the
L usedings, he said, nder n legal stat-
N fhe legality of thich the respond.
Vchallenged. Ths secretary OF the
bile OIL COMPANY was requested to
| the stock Into he Missouri court
ihe question was tfcrred TO the Mis-
vSupreme court br determination.
Suspended irMissouri.
master before nom the case wa
In Missouri. NJ Hagerman said.
nded all proceedrgs there until the
on whether tn. stock ownership
sontrol OF the Ompanies must be
scd, could be dssrmined. Attorney
aal Hadley then according to Mr..
man. came to Ntw York and under
" York statute box testimony and
Questions aiog the same line
lg the decision |; Missouri,
Hagerman declred that the stock
ship Is not mttrial and cited a
,n In Missouri the Tobacco trust
Ion.
r Busy With Trusts.
lur honor may have noticed" no
ll'"that out In thA country thcy are
: busy with wht are known as
" Hagerman said he contended that
ty-flve questions asked Mr.. Rogers
y-five OF them lave nothing what
10 do with the business affairs of
70 alleged Offending corporations.
Mrney- General Hadley, Mr. Hagcr-
u Q]leclared. ignored the Supreme court
. State OF MissoUl by asking these
Mons and the witrsss had a right to
Mp pending the decston of that court.
= Terms It Senationalism.
lam ] Curtis. q counsel for the
Wants. said that the atmosphere OF
. samination condurcd BY Mr.. Hadlcy
1aot dignifed, Nj Curtis asked to
his professional protest against
he termed the Hnsationallsm with
Al the case had tscn conducted.
VI IAttorney- General Hndley was about
gin his address Justie G!ldcrsleeve
A him to state The Issue In the case
IS and added that the question OF
v ownership did rot seem very ma
In proving whether The two COM
| s have operated In Missouri In re.
! 1t of trade.
you claim the stock In these com
3 is owned by anothef company or
asked Justice Glider
Ee.
9TH" replied Mr.. HaGlay. "and l as
your honor bases his question upon
lbsolute reliabilIty of the statement
cts as related by the other side.
Ruled Questions Material.
J. EIadley went on TO say that the
lal master In Missouri clearly ruled
such questions as those asked Mr..
Frs are material.
= Hadley described his action I'm this
In Missouri aud said the issue is
fher the respondeuls have entered In
conspiracy f"r their own benefit and
pc detrlmcnt OF alIothers In that bust
nc question Of natcrlality was not
~ oeIoIe the cou;i OF Missouri. II
not raised" he said
Att0rncy ,Grnerl told the court
inc objections 10 his right to come
sew York willie the Supreme court
lion was pending are not we'll foundl
re came Under the sanction and ap
- ot th9 highest tribunal OF his
: 6aVS Rogers Teo D1,-I