The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-01-05
OIL CASE OPENS.
State of Missouri Begins the
Taking of Testimony
In New York, in Its Suits
Against the Standard.
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
Witnesses Taken Into a Private
Room and Sworn.
Rockefeller and Rogers Are On
Hand to Testify.
Rogers Asked to Have His Testi-
mOny Taken Privately.
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

New York. Jan. 5.-Willam C.
Rockefeller, nephew of John d. Rock
efeller. the president of the Standard
OH company was one of the witnesses
who attended the hearing today Before
Frederick W. Sanborn. a special COM
missioner, appointed / by Governor Folk
of Missouri. to take evidence in two
suits brought by the state of Missouri
against the Standard Oil company and
companies said to be allied with it.
Other witnesses who are expected to
testify possibly today are H. H. Rogers
and John d. Archbold, vice presidents
and directors of the Standard Oil com
pany. The hearing was held in the
office of Henry Willman and E. T.
Tedford, director of the Standard Oil
company was the first witness. Her
bert S. Hadley, attorney general of Mis-
souri,, conducted the case for that
state
The evidence was taken for use in
two suits which have been brought
by the state of Missouri In one of
these suits the state seeks to bar the
Standard OH company of Indiana a
branch of the Standard Oil company
which transaCts its business west Of
Chlo, from doing business in Missouri.
This action also aims to exclude the
Waters Pierce Oil company and the
Nepubuc Oil company from transact
ing business in Missouri.
In the other action the state aims to
prevent the three companies named
from carrying out the terms of an al
legged pooling arrangement by which it
is charged that the business of their
competitors is crushed. 1t is alleged
by the prosecution that the three cor
porations are federated for the purpose
of preventing competition and cOntrOll-
ing prices in violation Of the Missouri
ANTITRUST law The penalty Of such
violation is forfeiture of charter or IL
cense to do business in the state
Among counsel representing the cor
pOrati0ns were Alfred D. Eddy of Chi
cago and John d. Johnson of ST.
Louis.
Doors Are Closed.
Tit is charged that the corporations
have districted the western states. each
controlling the business of its territory
but all being in reality branches of the
one trust
In the second suit Attorney General
HadIey named as additional defendants
II. c. Crenner, doing business under the
rame of the international Oil works and
H. A Williamson & Co. He alleged that
the two defendants also were dummy
competitors Of the Standard Oil COM
pary. All the witnesses were taken to
private room and sworn in behind
closed doors. the newspaper men being
excluded. The witnesses so sworn were
William G. Rockefeller. James A. Mof-
fatt, z. Bedford, Howard Page, H H
Rogers. John D, Archbold, Wade Hamp-
ten. Frank Q. BarstOW and A v
JcczeI Mr. Rogers asked that his evil
dence be taken privately, but his request
was refused.
Before Mr.. Bedford began his testi-
mOny. A. V. JOckel was first D1t on the
stand. but was withdrawn upon agree
ment that his evidence shall be sub
mitted in writing. Frank Hageman of
counsel for one Of the companies said
that he wanted to know if the proceed
ings were for advertising purposes.
Mr. Bedford said he has been engaged
I'm the business of refining oil since
1870, and was formerly with Boyd &
Thompson.
by the Standard Oil2" said Attorney
General Hadley-
I'VE object on the ground that the
question has no bearing on the issue"
said Mr.. Hagerman.
Attorney General Hadley insisted on
the question being answered
William v. Rowe. of counsel for the
companies instructed the witness. not Ia
answer but Mr. HadleY said the witness
had no right eff counsel The commits
sioner directed Mr.. Bedford to answer
but Rowe interpOsed saying: 'sThe Wit
ness shall not answer. We are pleading
under the laws of the state of New
york.
1--WE are proceeding under the laws of
Missouri" replied Mr. Hadley
'I want you to take down my objec-
ton" said Mr. Rowe.
IT shall not do it unless directed by
the court - said Commissioner Sanborn
Refuses 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
fin person and not by counsel When
the question was repeated the witness
said:
by advice of counsel I decline to an
what was your next employment?"
was next asked.
..The Standard Oil company of Indiana
objects to the question" said Mr.
T4aeerman Mr.. Bedford refused to an
syver on advice of counsel.
Mr.. Bedford said he had been d direc-
tor Of the standard on company for
.t4ave you any personal objection to
disclosing what your business was three
Counsel objected and Mr.. Bedford re-
fused to answer
son that your answer might tend to in
crfmfnate you or subject you to criminal
nrosecutfon2~ % asked Mr.. Hadley.
- have no other reasons than those
have stated, = said Mr.. Bedford.
seWhen did you hrst become connect
ed with any Standard Oil company ?"
Here Mr.. Rowe objected and want
al mis- Objected noted on the record.
5,77t Commissioner Sanborn refused.
you have no standing here, said
commissioner Sanborn
~ am SORRY that the ignorance OF
fF4e connaissio oner prevents my appe1r-
-.5oe here" said Mr.. Rowe.
81 frsisf that you treat me with ra-