Perth Amboy evening news., 1906-01-08
Rogers
We RY LITTLE.
Standard Oil Man Defied the
MissOurian Officials Tried
TO be Humorous.

trust busters sent by Governor Folk
to attack the Standard Oil octopus in
its lair here corraled Henry II. Rog-
ers and had a session with him that
was like the weather outslde-mixed
storm and sunshine.
They did not get q word of informa-
tion out of him, for he declined to an
swer all questions that had the slight
est tinge of Importance. His refusals
will be certified to a supreme court
judge and an order asked compelling
the witness to answer. There is where
the real fight will ONE in.
But if the examination of Mr.. Rog
ers failed to elicit any facts concerning
the Standard Oil company it did devel-
op several interesting and important
phases.
II. II. Rogers, benefting by his init.
mate association with Mark Twain,
has become the great American hui
morist, as one of the attending coun-
sci crowned him. Instead of being the
stern, cold, calculating human money
making machine that Thomas W. Law
son has painted, he thawed out into
jokes and smiles and refused to get
angry more than once in every ten min.
utes.
Mr.. Rogers gave a remarkable eX-
hibition in the art of answering a
thousand questions in cross examina.
ton without telling anything save his
name, and it was evident how little q
great power in the. Standard like Mr.
Rogers knows about it's business, &C.
cording to his testimony.
THE first question is" said Attorney
General Hadley, what is your name,
residence and occupation"
THAT is not a proper question:" said
the oil magnate, and the audience was
50 much interested in the way Mr..
Rogers said it that the remarkable an
swer did not cause even a litter.
Mr.. Rogers and Attorney General
Hadley were looking each other in the
eyes.
You will allow me to decide whether
it is a proper question or not" said
the Missourian.
When Commissioner Sanborn told
him to answer it Mr.. Rogers said that
he believed his name was Henry II.
Rogers; that he lived in New York
and was in the oil business.
Mr.. Rogers refused to say what he
would do if the supreme court direct
ed him to answer the questions asked,
saying that matter would be determin-
ed when it confronted him.
Mr.. Rogers admitted that he was a
stakeholder in the Standard Oil com
pany of Indiana, one of the respond
ents in the Missouri suit.
Many questions were answered in the
same way, as the following:
"Is it not a fact that you are a di-
rector in the Standard Oil company of
New Jersey and that it OWNS, holds or
controls either through itself or some
other individual or corporation all or a
controlling interest in the Standard Oil
company of Indiana and the Waters
Pierce Oil company"
II decline to answer on advice of
counsel"
"Were you one of the trustees of the
original Standard Oil trust during its
existence, and did not these trustees
hold more than Il majority of the stock
of the Waters Pierce Oil company, and
since that time has not the Standard
Oil company owned the controlling in
terest Of the Waters-Pierce company"
81 decline to answer"
"What business have you ever trans.
acted or known Of having been trans
acted by the board of directors of the
Standard Oil company of %Indiana?"
Il suppose 1 know that it declares
dividends"
SIS that all?"
"1f l had time to think it over l
might think of something else"
"Did you find when you were in Ok
lahoma and Indian Territory that the
Waters-Pierce Oil company sold oil in
those two territories while the Stand
ard Oil company did not?"
81 decline to answer on advice of
counsel"