The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-01-05
Pooled, Is Allegation.

1t IS alleged by the prosecution that
the three corporations are federated for
the purpose of preventing competition,
and Of controlling prices in violation of
the Missouri antitrust law. The pen
atty Of such violation is forfeiture of
charter or license to do business in the
state.
Among counsel representing the cor
porations were Alfred D. Eddy of Chi
cago and John D. johnson of st. Louis.
1t is charged that the corporations
have districted the western states, each
controlling the business of its terri
tory, but all being in reality branches
of the one trust.
In the second suit, Attorney General
Hadlev named as additional defen-
dants H. G. Crenner, doing business I'M
der the name of the International Oil
Works, and III. A. Williamson & Co.
He alleged that the two defendants
also were dummy competitors of the
Standard Oil company.
Behind Closed Doors.
All the witnesses were taken to a
private room and sworn in behind
closed doors, the newspaper men being
excluded. The witnesses SO sworn were
William G.. Rockefeller, James A. Mof-
fet, E. T. Bedford, Howard Page, n. II.
Rogers, John D. Archibald. Wade
Hampton, Frank O. Barstow and A. V.
Jockel. Mr.. Rogers asked that his
evidence be taken privately, but his
request was refused.
E. T. Bedford, a director of the
Standard Oil company, was the first
witness here today.
Before Mr.. Bedford begin his testi-
mony, A. V. Jockel was first put on
the stand, but was Withdrawn upon
agreement that his evidence shall be
submitted in writing. Frank Hager
man of counsel for one of the COM
panies, said that he wanted to know
If the proceedings were for advertise
ing purposes.
Mr.. Bedford said he has been en-
gagged in the business of refining oil
since 1870, and was formerly with
Boyd & Thompson.
Objection by Defense.
"Was the latter company absorbed
| by the Standard Oilso asked Attorney
| General Hadley.
| Give object on the ground that the
question has no bearing on the issues,
said Mr.. Hagerman.
Attorney General Hadley insisted on
the question, being answered. William
v. Rowe, of counsel for the companies,
| instructed the witness not to answer,
| but Mr.. Hadley said the witness had
no right of counsel. The commissioner
/ directed Mr.. Bedford to answer, but
Rowe interposed, saying:
"The witness shall not answer. We
are pleading under the laws of the
state Of New York. -
| eve are proceeding under the laws
of Missouri, . replied Mr.. Hadley.
i 81 want you to take down my OBJ
jection,o said Mr.. Rowe.
/ 81 shall not do it unless directed by
the court, !" said Commissioner San
born.
Declines to Answer.
Attorney General Hadley again in
structed the witness to answer the
question and said that any privilege
claimed by the witness must be claimed
in person and not by counsel. Whel
the question was repeated the witness
said:
"By advice of counsel I decline tt
answer
"What was your next employment
was next asked.
tThe Standard Oil company of In
diana objects to the question: sal,
Mr.. Hagerman. Mr.. Bedford refuse,
to answer on advice of counsel.
Mr.. Bedford said that he has beel
Continued on Cd PAGE. 9Th Column.