The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-03-27

the company, spent an uncomfortable hour
on the stand in the afternoon. At the revi-
GUS hearing Mr.. Hampton had declined to
answer practically all the questions Of Mr..
fused to tell who employed him as auditor,
There was a great change in his attitude
yesterday. His counsel, the warllke Mr..
Rowe, was not present n Mr.. Hampton
answered with considerable freedom.
He testified that since the reorganization
OF the Waters-Pierce company in 1900 and
the transfer OF the Standards stock to Mr..
Van Beuren he had not been the general
auditor of the corporation and that no re-
ports Of any audit Of the %company's books
had been sent to him, although some Of his
W staff was employed OF the work. AS
soon as these men went to st. Louis they
were put on the payroll Of the Waters
Pierce company n we're paid by that
concern as long as they remained there.
His auditors were employed because the
OIL auditors. Their reports were made to
Fl. Clay Pierce, the president Of the com
pany. Ne reports were ever made to him
after the reorganization, but he presumed
that a copy OF them was sent to some one at
% Broadway.
Mr.. Hadley showed the witness a mum;
Der Of copies of letters which were addressed
to the secretary Of the WateB-Pierce COM
pany at st. Louis. This was the first batch
of the documents Of which Mr.. Hadley
hAio a. SOPIOO " bO NSNAbANC w
tell. By them he is confident he can prove
that the Waters-Pierce company, the
Standard Oil Company Of Indiana and the
Republic Oil Company were really managed
said he had no doubt that he wrote the
letters shown to him. They all related
to sending Standard Oil auditors to st.
Louis to examine the Waters-Pieroe books.
In one Of them he told the secretary that
"for reasons that you will undoubtedly
nr~raAiatA fhtnIr " n raw + he q ttlitnr1
had better be considered as an employee
of your company while there"
Why did you use that phrase?" asked
the Acknowledgement.
Il couldn't tell you exactly now why I
used it, " replied the witness.
Wasn't it because the State OF Texas
had refused a certificate to the Waters
Pierce company unless some responsible
official would make al affidavit that the
company was no longer connected with
If it was I did not know it.
Mr.. Hadley then went back to MI. Hamp-
tons previous testimony, in which he said
that he did not direct one Baokus to audit
the books Of the Waters-Pieroe company.
Mr.. Hadley produced a copy OF another
years after the reorganization, directing
the secretary OF the Waters-Pieroe company
to put Backus on as auditor at 5000 a
year. Mr.. Hampton explained that he had
sdlo IHdt ne ndu possibly eenC pdchue "
st. Louis, but that he could not remember.
Does this letter refresh your memory?'
asked Mr.. Hadley.
1t does" replied the witness.
Didn't you direct Backus to audit these
books and didn't you have kn owledge
that he was there?'
i did
Mr.. Hadley tur ned up another letter
which Mr.. Hampton had written to the
secretary Of the Waters-Pierce company
concerning an error Of $?o.55 which was
made in charging an item to the construc-
ton account
The Standard Oil Company kept a pretty
close watch on the assets of that company,
eh?" inquired Mr.. Hadley.
L should think so, retorted Mr.. Hampton.
They had a large amount of money in
vested in the concern, and there was no
reason why they should not watch its as
SETS"
The hearing will go on at 1890 o'clock
this morning.