Los Angeles herald., 1906-01-07

bDOuJ year ago.
When Mr.. Hadley asked the witness
N Rice was ever connected with the
standard Oil company counsel for all
the oil companies objected, but the wit
ness said:
IF holding certificates is a member
ship he was member OF the Standard
Oil trust"
Were those certificates issued by the
Standard Oil trust?"
yes"
Counsel also objected to this uues-
tion ana answer
Witness said the Standard Oil COM
rany was organized In 1882.
George Rice died last year and wit
ness now holds these certificates as his
Administrative
80 far as you know, are these the
only certificates Of the STANDARD OF!
trust in existence?"
80 far as 1 know" Mrs. Butts re-
Piled.
She said the suit was brought against
the Standard Oil company of Ohio to
drive them out of the trust or out Of
the state if they remained i'm the trust.
History Of Litigation
In response to request by Mr. Had
ley for a statement of the history of
SIalluHIU
Oil company did in defense, Mrs. Butts
said:
THE STANDARD Oil trust moved to dis
solve in 1892 and these were liquidating
trustees certificates. This went on
until about 1897, very few certificates
being liquidated.
Gen. Monet, attorney general Of
Ohio, brought suit and 1 think the si-
preme court decided that the trust
should get out of Ohio in 1899, and then
the Standard Oil company of New Jer-
sey become the holding company"
Was this move in 1892 to dissolve
the Standard OIL company after iudg-
ment of the Ohio courts against the
Standard Oil company of that state?"
asked Mr.. Hadley.
"I think So"
Mr.. Hadley asked that If after the
adverse judgment of the Ohio court the
Standard Oil company did not enter on
a dissolution by using liquidating cer-
tificates in place of the original trust
certificates and if in 1899. when the
Ohio state courts enforced the odrer of
dissolution the Standard Oil company
of New Jersey became the holding COM
pany.
Mr.. Hagcrman objected. but Mr.
Hadley said he had a right under
souri, to ask leading questions.
Mrs. Butts said in reply to Mr.. Had
ley's question that the statement was
exactly correct.
Mr.. Hadley asked if the Waters
Pierce oil company was one of the
original members of the STANDARD Oil
company. Counsel objected, but Mrs
Butts replied:
ut is one of the companies named in
the trust agreement"
She never saw the original agree
ment. but saw certified copies. She
does not know where the original trust
agreement is now. She said that she
does not know of any other trust GER
tiicates, and the iquidating certifi-
cate than the ones she holds.
Asked for the names of the companies
which composed the original Standard
Oil company, she said there We're so
many of them she could only give ten
from the trust agreement.
H. n. Rogers Is Called
II. H. Rogers was called after Mrs.
Butts had been excused. Mr. Hadley
asked his name, residence and occu-
patton.
Mr.. Rogers demanded a right to see
the paper on which the question was
written and said 1t was not a proper
question for Mr.. Hadley to ask.
Commissioner Sanborn instructed
him to answer.
Am to see the paper?" asked Mr.
Rogers.
The commissioner refused to allow
it and instructed Mr.. Rogers to an
swer.
II believe by name is Henry Fl.
Rogers; | live in New York and am
in the oil business
What oil company or companies are
you connected WITH" asked Mr.. Had
ley.
Mr.. Haeerman, the counsel, advised
the witness not to answer.
w. V. Rowe, a lawyer, also objected
and demanded that his objection he
noted. The commissioner declined to
note the objection, for the reason, he
said, that Mr.. Rowe represented no.
body.
II decline to answer" said Mr. Rog-
erS.
The commissioner instructed him tG
answer.
. Mr.. Hadley asked if Mr.. Rogers
claims any personal privilege under the
laws of the United States, New York
or Missouri
"I claim no personal rights said
Mr.. Rogers.
DO you mean that to answer might
incriminate you to penalty or for
feiture?" asked Mr.. HadleY.
"T do not" said Mr.. Rogers.
Mr.. Rogers here objected to the
presence of a photographer who, he
said. was taking his picture.
The photographer was told to de-
sist.
Mr.. Hadley asked whether if the SUI
preme court ordered him to answer he
would then refuse.
Mr.. Rogers said:
ut will be decided at the time"
by whom?'
That also will be determined at the
time"
by whom?"
Mr.. Rogers did not answer.
Are you connected with the STAN
dard Oil company of Indiana, the Wat
ers-Pierce Oil company of Missouri
or the Republic Oil company of New
York?' asked Mr., Hadley.
Director of Standard Oil
Eyes. with the Standard Oil COM
pany of Indiana as director" replied
Mr.. Rogers.
"As stockholder?" asked Mr.. Had
ley.
Mr.. Rowe advised witness not to