The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1906-01-15
HEARING ON QUESTION TO COM.
PEI Il. Il. RooERs 70 RE-
PLY TO INQUIRIES.
esgar LISTENS 10 ARGUMENTS
oTANDARD OIL ATToRNEYe As.
CERT SUR Is NOT BROUGHT
IN GOOD FAITH.

new YORK, Jan. l5.-Tne nearing Ol
argument on the question whether H
H. Rogers, vice president Of the Stand
ard OH company, shall be compelled
to answer the questions asked by At
torney General Hadlcy Of Missouri
was again adjourned during the day
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 we're three sides to
the argument, that of the state of Mis-
souri,. Mr.. Rogers and the three re-
spondent companies named above.
Henry Wollman. Attorney General
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 Mr.. Rogers refusal to an
swer the questions put to him. He de-
clared that the Waters-Pierce Oh COM
pany and the Republic Oil company.
supposedly doing business In Missouri
a. competing companies, were really
owned by the one corporation. the
standard OH company. He cited de-
Clsion In the case of Randell, where a
witness contended that questions put
to him were not material and the
higher courts held that 1t was not for
the witness to determine and fined
him for contempt.
Mr.. WOllman then insisted that the
question concerning the stock owner
ship Of Mr.. rilford and H. Clay Pierce
was very material aud also the Ques-
tion concerning the ownership of stock
In the Waters-Pierce and the Republic
on companies and whether 1t was
owned by the Standard Oil interests.
both OF which Mr.. Rogers refused to
answer.
Judge Gildersleeve suggested that It
was a broad question and Mr.. Woll-
man said 1t was matter for the lower
court to decide. All that the courts tn
New York, he said, are to pass upon is
the matter Of interrogations. Mr..
Wollman said tie questions are neces-
sary and material and that Mr.. Rogers
should be compelled to answer,
Argument Of Trust Attorneys.
William ". Rowe then filed the for
NAL answer of MT. Rogers. In which
he asserted that the questions are i'm
material; that the question Of their
admissability is pending in the Mis-
souri, courts; that there Is no legal
authority for the hearing which Mr..
Hadley has been holding In. this city
and that the questions we're not asked
for the purpose Of public policy but to
get notoriaty for Mr.. Hadley. 1t In
cluded also complaint that photog.
raphers and artists were given q free
hand at the hearing
Frank Hagerman Of Kansas City and
william j., Curtis also spoke for the
defendant corporations In opposition
to the request Of Attorney General
Aadley that the court compel Mr.. Rog-
ers to answer the questions asked.
As Attorney General Hadley was
0UOuk W uS3AA lao QAAA~s'S S0ose~S
Gildersleeve asked him to state the
issue In the case clearly and added
that the question Of stock ownership
did not seem very material In proving
whether the two companies have oper-
ated in Missouri In restraint OF trade.
"Do you claim the stock In these
companies Is owned by another COM
pany or an individual?" asked Justice
Oildersleeve.
'.Both." replied Mr.. Hadley. "and !
assume your honor bases his question
upon the absolute reliability OF the
statement of facts as related by the
other side"
Mr.. Hadley went on to say that the
special master In Missouri clearly
ruled that such Qutistions as those
asked Mr.. Rogers are material.
Mr.. Hadley 1.fihed his actions In
this case in Missouri and said the is-
sue Is whether tho respondents have
entered into . CONSPIRACY for their
Dwn b<hciit and to the detriment OF all
others 10 that business.