New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-25
CASE WON, SAYS HADLEY
DIR. ROGERS on STAND.
Counsel Admits Stock Is Held in
Trust By Standard Oil.

4 t''@ - y ArtthtNI a. Nbtt.
/ Attorney General Herbert s. Hadley Of Mis-
SUR won point In his long fight against the
: Standard OIL Company yesterday when he oh
tsined the admission through the COUNSEL for H
r Rogers. the active head OF the Standard OIL
Company. that the Standard controlled the
waters-Fierce company. the Republic OH Com
pany and the Standard oil Company OF 1ndi-
sna. These are the concerns whose affairs Mr.
Eadley has been investigating in this citv and
Missouri Tor a year or more. There is little
p probahiIity that John D. Rockefeller will Ia
: -sred 20 the witness stand. even though a sub
g nora be served on him, for Mr.. Hadley ssid he
would excuse him II he could get the desired IN
fa-nation from Mr.. Rogers
At the close OF the hearing. which was held AT
No g. Wall street before Commissioner San
to-u NJ. Hadley was highly pleased at the re-
suit q his Investigation and said that he
thought he would be able TO prove tomorrow
that the business Of both Of the Missouri COM
rsnies was directed from No % Broadway and
~ trust oficials.'
TIE session began al Il o'clock The Stand
srd OIL Company was represented bv coun-
Sc including Frank Hagerman. OF Kansas city;
John D. Johnson, Of ST. Louis; Alfred E. Eddy,
and II. F. Elliot, Of Chicago; NJ V. Rowe. Of
New York and Judge Sam Priest. Of St Louis
I " Haley was assisted by Assistant Attorney
4 General Rush Lake and his New York repre-
ssatative- Henry Wollman. H. H. Rogers came
nio the rooms accompanied by William G.
Rockefeller. son OF William Rockefeller
THE SAME QUESTIONS ASKED.
II. Rogers was called TO the stand. and Mr..
Hs5ley piled him with the same questions that
be refused 10 answer more than a month ago.
One Of these questions was whether Nj Rogers
vas stockholder Of the Standard oil Com
paHy OF Indiana. and Mr.. Rogers said he was.
SO yoq3l kno ANYTHING Of the conditions Of
60 you know OF any division q the business
ss Iys 70 ne ne sale q q between he
Rep on company Al do rot.
$50 yol oWn or control any stock IN the
sna.6e- person? AZ % non SOuiSeli OF through
Continuing. Mr.. Hadley asked the witness If
be knew n. n Van Buren,, and Mr. Rogers ad-
mi-ted that he did and also that he was SON.
in-lsw Of John D Archbold. Under exaulina-
aon he said that TO his knowledge the bust
ness Of the Standard Oil Company Of Indiana
was not controlled in Missouri by any trade
committee with Offices al No. 20 Broadway. Mr..
Rogers said that he had mo business connec-
to1 with The selling and refining Of petroleum
IL Missouri Il was then brought out that D.
4 NCtfar is the president Of the Standard OIL
Company Of Indiana. Mr.. Mofats Office is at
20. % Broadway.
.Q-D-d YOU ever have g conference with Mr.
Nafa- -Eere2 Al have.
0-wss il on business connected with the bust
7- standard CcruCauv Indiana.
id you uee- him at no. = Broadway Al pre-
C-E01 know OF TIE existence Ct the Waters
F-e-c7 g- company of Missouri do you not? A
3- Hadley then put the following question. On
which hinged the result Of the investigation:
Is it not. z. fact that the stock % these three
= STANDARD u
p" Jersey OF ~ some person or persons IN trust
lg-eerlenr2- l-1- u
Mr. ROGERS HAS QUESTION REPEATED.
III Rogers had the question repeated, and
Cs2 replied that his knowledge was extremely
I--ied IS 70 such details"
A this point M Johnson admitted that the
E1cz q The Republic OIL Company and the
ha'e-s-Flerce- Company and the Standard Oil
Company OF Indiana was held IN trust BY the
Standard Oh Company Of New Jersey He
E5de- that the admission was made for the
present litigation Judge Priest said the stock
showing on the stock book OF the waters-Pierce
Company IS standing IA the name Of NJ NJ
Van Buren, was held in the interests Of the
Standard Oil Company OF New Jersey. and that
they made that admission for the purposes Of
Ills litigation.
Il don't suppose the stock is held for the pur-
poses Of this litigation" observed Attorney Cen
era EsLley.
nc. The admission is made for the purposes
c, t1-s litigation" replied Judge Priest
These admissions were noted on record with
gresr care and read ana reread. Mr.. Hadley
sad he wished i understood that these admis-
Ei0ns 1s stock ownership covered the period Of
tine named IN the information. The trust at
torrev aEreed. and made a new admission that
for this litigation only il would be admitted
thar a majority Of the stock Of the Standard
Oil Company Of Indiana and all the stock Of the
Republic OIL Company was held in the inter
ests" % the Standard OIL Company. Mr.. Had
ley objected 10 the word interests" and Il was
finally stricken out, so that the admission read
as follows.
He'd for the Standard OIL Company Of New Jer-
sey and was held during the time named IN the
Information and complaint.
Lr. EadIey had It noted that the records show
that The admission was made by all the counsel
present rspresenting the three respondent COM
Isnies
Under further examination Mr.. Rogers said
he had 10 knowledge Of reports Of the business
q The Waters Pierce Company being made TO
10. Is Broadway; that he did not receive any
reports OF that company's business. and that he
aat 1ot discussed the business Of that company
with H. II. TIlford IRON 1901 TO March. 1905"
re admitted that he had talked with other per-
soLs, hut could not recall the names. Mr.. Had
.ey asked several other questions, but Mr.. Rog-
eIS pleaded lack Of memory on these points
This closed BIr. Rogers's examination. He
IsnEed 5Ir. Hadley for his courtesy in q 3ovial