New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-10-11
STANDARD OIL FACTS.
EUsdence GiOen by j. d. Rockefeter
an 1898 admitted at Present Trial.

m 1898 admitted at Present 1T1dt.
Findlay. Ohio. Oct. 1o.-After a sharp Legal
argument of an hour and half to-day the eesu
mony given by John D. Rockefener In 1880 oe-
fore the Supreme Court OF the state "as 40
mitted evidence IN the trial here OF the Stahd'
ard OIL Company of Ohio. charged with con-
spiracy against trade
In admitting the evidence, which Illuminated
the methods of the Standard at that time Judge
Banker said 1t was simply TO enlighten the jury
as TO conditions prior TO the period covered IN
the present suit, and not 70 prove any aot In the
last three years covered by the suit
Before this ruling was arrived at Messrs.
Kline Troup and Tolls, for the defence. had
made arguments against admitting the testi-
mony. Attorney General Ellis became active for
the first time in the case by making the prin-
cipal argument Of the prosecution favorfng the
admission of the evidence The evidence con-
sisted of the pleadings and testimony in the two
suits against the Standard Oil Trust before tho
Supreme Court in 1892 and 1897. part of which
was read to the jury yesterday.
V P Kline, conducting the case for the Stand
ard maintained there was no competency In re-
hearsing this ancient history" but Prosecutor
David and his assistant. Mr.. Phelps. insisted It
was necessary. that the jury might get TIE
proper perspective Of the case.
R. L. Bates and John O'Brien. of Lima both
connected with the Buckeye Pipe Line Company,
suhpnnaed by the prosecution to-day in
addition to their list OF witnesses. AS yet the
defence has presented no list of witnesses.
Before the jury was brought into court on it's
converting at 8 o'clock to-day attorneys for the
prosecution and defence held a preliminary ar
gurnent touching the competency Of admitting
the testimony OF Mr.. Rockefeller. Mr.. Phelps
for the prosecution maintained that this evil
dence by Mr. Rockefeller was highly material
and. IN fact, the very essence Of the case in
trial
In Directing Mr.. Kline said he would not con-
cede even the authenticity Of the statements
Mr.. Phelps retorted that Mr.. Rockefeller was
then as now president OF the defendant COM
pany, and what he then said the trust had done
was competent evidence.
Mr.. Rockefeller has not been shown to be,
and, IN fact, is not, president Of this defendant
company" asserted Mr. Troup for the defence.
The statements he then made were years be-
fore this cause OF action. The things charged IN
this suit things done in Hancock County
since 1908 How can such statements be compe-
tent evidence?'
In reply Mr.. Phelps said "a corporation has
no face except a false face. 1t is mantle that
covers the individuals in IT, so that when the
head of the company. its president. speaks. that
is the language Of the corporation itself"
Reiterating that the evidence was not au-
thenticated in a proper way TO be accepted as
evidence, Mr.. Kline followed with the second
objection that the president of no corporation
could by his utterances bind the corporation.
II the proposed procedure prevailed he said, the
deposition Of any officer of any company might
be taken. certified to before the clerk of any
saLx futo i1IrfSdfCtfOr1 a M
admitted as evidence in a criminal proceeding.
Judge Banker interrupted to remark that the
evidence was offered only TO show the manner
OF doing business at that time. which, of course
would not convict the defendant within the
time OF the present charge, but simply TO show
that such trust was formed
Tt is no excuse for evidence that II Will 90
no HARM" replied Mr. Kline
Would not the admission OF the president
OF the corporation be conclusive as 10 the man
ner OF its doing business?" queried Judge
Banker.
Mr. Kline-''No. sir not at all"
Judge Banker further stated that the evil
denCe was not offered 10 show either the gullt
or innocence of the defendant.
MI Tolls, for the defence, replied 70 this that
If il was not for that purpose 1t was surely IN
competent evidence. Mr.. Tolls maintained that
the state by law was absolutely barred from
taking a deposition in a criminal case, hence II
was a traVesty TO endeavOr 10 admit as evil
dence a deposition taken in another case.
Attorney General Ellis said he could not DO
his duty TO the state If he did not give his judg-
ment in the case. Clearly, in my opinion, this
evidence is admissible" he said. He further
maintained that in giving the testimony in ques-
ton Mr. Rockefeller was acting for the corpora
ton and that if he could not and did not so act
there would be no way whatever or proving any
acts Of a corporation.
Judge Banker admitted the testimony as COM
petent His ruling came at the conclusion OF
q argument of an hour and half
IF the answers Of Mr.. Rockefeller, he SAID
tended 10 prove any act within the three years
covered by this suit, the objection might be
valid but 1t is simply desired 10 show the acts
of the corporation prior TO that time
An application Of Mr.. Kline TO take smoke
resulted in a brief recess of the court. The jury
was brought in when the trial was resumed, and
Mr. Phelps began the reading OF Mr.. Rookie
felar's answers TO the interrOgatiOns sworn 70 IN
T7aFr7.arv 1855 These answers admitted the
original trust and gave light on the organlza-
ZION of the subsidiary companies. When the
.s,ir1onv had been read Mr. Kline for the de-
fence moved TO strike IL all from the records,
hut was overruled by the court.
~