The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-01-13
oil TRUST SETS
Up LEGAL REFUGE
Rogers Attorneys Argue His I'm
munity from Missouri Probe
in New York.

New York, Jan. 13.-The hearing of
argument on the question whether Il.
H. Rogers, vice president of the Stand
the questions asked by Attorney-Gen-
eral Hadley of Missouri, was adjourned
today until Monday morning., after
counsel had presented some of their
arguments. Justice Gildersleeve did
not give any decision as to whether Mr..
Rogers must answer. -
The proceedings were begun when
| William v. Rowe, Mr.. Rogers personal
counsel, said there were three sides 90
souri,, Mr.. Rogers and the, three re-
spondent companies named above. .
Plea Of Missouri.
Henry Wollman, Aforementioned
Hadley's New York counsel, described
the conditions under which the action
was instituted in Missouri, and the
commission was appointed to take tes-
timony in New York. He told of MI.
Rogers refusal to answer the questions
put to him: H. declared that the
Republic. Oil company, supposedly do
ing business in Missouri as competing
companies, were really owned by the
one corporation, the Standard Oil
company. He cited a decision where
it was commended that questions put
were not material and the higher courts
held that it was not for the witness to
determine, and fined him for contempt.
Another issue, continued MI. Wolf
man, was that the main issue was be;
fore the supreme court of Missouri and
| ebor,1I ho fno11Iy loft RI that tribunal
for determination.
Endless Refusals.
That should not be considered, he
Observation-Disclosures if it were, wit
ness could refuse to answer for an end
less time. Regarding Mr.. Rogers as
sertion that reporters were present at
the hearing, MI. Wollman said MI. Rogers
had not put forward that objection at
the time the questions were refused,
as he should have done.
MI. Wollman then insisted that the
question, concerning the stock owner
ship Of Mr.. Tilford and II. Clay Pierce
was very material, and also the ques'
tion concerning the ownership OF stocks
in the Waters-Pierce and the Republic
Oil companies, and whether it was
owned by the, Standard Oil interests
both of which Mr.. Rogers refused te
answer.
Up to New York Court.
Judge Gildersleeve suggested that il
was a broad question, and MI. W,oll
man said it was a matter for the lower
court to decide. All that the court IL
New York, he said, is to pass upon, Il
the materiality Of the interpretations
Mr.. Wollman said the questions were
necessary and material and that MI
Rogers should be compelled to answer
man declared, for Mr.. Rogers to snee:
at the proceedings and at .Attorne.
General Hadley, who was doing hi
, duty. If the proceedings were brough
into -d~isrespect, he said, it was MI
Rogers who did it.
Oil Trusts Answer.
William V. Rowe her fled the for
e NAL answer Of Mr.. Rogers in which b
t assertedAthat the questions are inmate
t rial, that the question of their admissa
bility is pending in the Missouri courts
that there is no legal authority for tn
f hearing which Mr.. Hadley has bee1
holding in this city, and that the ques
tions were not asked for purposes o
Mr.. Hadley. It included also som
complaint that photographers and al
fists, were given a free hand at tn
g hearing.
For the Oil Companies.
Frank Hagerman of Kansas City, re1
%resenting the three respondent oil con
= panies, said the attempt to discover tn
stock ownership Of the respondent con
panies was immaterial. ATTORNEY
e General Had1ey brought the proceed
T. ings, he said, under a legal statute, til
- legality Of which the respondents cha
lenged. The secretary Of the Republ!
10 Oil company was requested to bring tt
stock into the Missouri court and til
le question was referred to the, Nilsson
n supreme court for determination.
. The, master before whom the case Wi
tried in Missouri, MI. Hagerman sal
suspended all proceedings there unit
= the question whether the stock owne
ship and control Of the companies mu'
be disclosed could be determined.
Ownership Not Material.
Attorney General Hadley then, a
& cording to Mr.. Hagerman, came to Ne
J York, and under a New York statu1
y took testimony and asked question
along the same line. pending in Mi
a souri, Mr.. Hagerman declared that tt
Il stock ownership is not material an
v cited a decision in Missouri in the t
bacco trust litigation. >.>-
e. "Your honor may have noticed,''
u SAID, CnaC OUT IN mat country the
t. are rather busy with what are know
IT as trusts.''' <7
ID Mr.. Hagerman declared that in Il
IS information presented by the attorne
l. general no allegation has been, mac
against an individual stock owner. II
s. issue is, he said, whether the two cor
panies, the Waters-Pierce and the r
public, operate in Missouri, in opp
sition to the law Of that state. The a
s~ertion was made by Mr.. Hadley tn:
y a producing company has no right 4
& sell it's oil to the two alleged non-cor
p peting corporations. ,>I.-, .
MI. Hagerman said he commended tn:
6 of forty-fve questions asked Mr.. Ro;
. ers, twenty-five have nothing whatev'
, to do with the business affairs of tt
two alleged offending corporations.
= Judge Queries Hadley.
" AS Attorney General Hadley W,
! about ITO begin his address, Justice Gi
q dersleeve asked him to state the ISIS,
in the case clearly and added that I'll
" question of stock ownership did n,
seem very material in proving wheth
J. the two companies have operated
Missouri in restraint Of trade. r.
Il edo you claim the stock in the,
companies is owned by another cor
pany or an i~ndividual?' asked Justi
Gildersleeve. H.
ftRoth. - ran1ied Mr. Hadlev tta,