The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-01-09
LAWSON is READY
Attorney General Has Found
Witness Willing to Tell
All He Knows About the
Standard Oil Trust.
HE WILL BE CALLED.
By Telegraph to Come to New
York and Testify.
Rogers Continues to Refuse to
Reply to Questions.
HE Will BE CALLED.

New York. Jan 9.-Attorney General
HadIey of Missouri, who is conducting
the hearing before Commissioner SAN
born in connection with the suits
brought against the socaIed oil trust
by the state of Missouri, said today thal
Thomas w Lawson, of Boston, Woulo
be invited to appear before the commits
sioner This decision was reached To-
day when the attorney general was IN
formed that Mr. Lawson last night eN-
pressed a willingness to come to New
York, in connection with the inquiry
He said that he would telegraph Mr.
Lawson Immediately and ask him to
come to New York and testify.
IF Thomas w. Lawson can throw any
Hight on the present existing trust re-
lations which we understand are en-
ployed by the STANDARD Oil company. we
will be glad to have him testify" said
Mr. Hadley But, if he can only come
here and add to the sensauonahsm of
the proceedings / do not care to have
him appear. If he possess real material
facts of value. we viii be glad to hear
him. but for the purpose OF a general
recital we do not nor viii not need
him."
Henry II. Rogers. vice president of
the Standard Oil company of New Jer-
~
an adjournment yesterday, was the first
witness at today's session of the hear
ing In connection with the state MIS-
sou1is suit against the alleged oil trust.
The Interrogation Of Mr. Rogers was
taken up today at the point where it
was Interrupted yesterday.
How long have you been connected
with the Standard oil company Of In
diana?" asked Alr. Hadley, the attorney
general of Missouri, who is conducting
the inquiry before Commissioner San
born
Il don't know"
"Since its organizatiOn2'
II don't think it is worth while to
answer that" said Mr.. Rogers.
You viii permit me to be the judge
Of that" responded the attorney gen
Mr.. Hadley then asked Mr. Pogers II
ne was connected with the STANDARD
Oil company of Indiana. when it sue
cecded to the business Of the Standard I
Oil company Of Kentucky.
Counsel Objects.
Counsel for the Standard Oil company
objected and the witness declined to an
gWGs
Were you connected in any way with
the Consolidated Tank Line company
which did business in Missouri and was
succeeded by the Standard Oil company
of KentuCky?"
IT decline to answer"
did you ever by yourself or others
as trustees own or hold any stock in
the Waters-Pierce Oil company of
Missouri ?"
IT decline to answer on advice of
counsel replied Mr.. Rogers
Were you a trustee of the original
Standard Oil trust" asked Mr.. Had
ley. Mr.. Rogers attorney objected
and the witness did not answer
"Is it not a fact that you and eight
other persons in the Standard Oil
trust held 1900 shares of the Waters
Pierce Oil company June 20, 1892 as
now appears in the offices of the sec
retary Of state of Missouri 2'
objected to by Mr.. Hagerman. be
cause it relates to a period prior to
the organization of the three oil com
panies which are defendants in the
Il decline to answer" said Mr..
Rogers.
How long a time has the Standard
oil company of New Jersey either
through itself or some other person.
held or controlled a majority Of the
stock of the Waters-Pierce com
Il decline to answer"
"That is. you decline to tell for how
long a time? 2" asked Mr.. Hadley.
"I decline to answer on advise of
counsel" replied Mr.. Rogers.
For how long has the STANDARD Oil
company OF New Jersey owned or con-
trolIed a majority of the stock of the
STANDARD Oil company of Indiana?
eI decline to answer"
Mr. HadIey asked the same question
as applied to the Republic Oil com
pany and again Mr.. Rogers declined to
answer.
cit is not a fact that majority of
the stock in each Of these corporations
has been transferred or is owned or
controlled by the same person or per
sons, and by persons I mean corpora
tiOn2'
Rogers Asks a Question.
Mr. TTappT01au Objected and Mr.
Rogers asked what companies Mr.
Hadley meant.
Mr.. Hadley said he meant the de-
PENDANTS in this case.
Mr. Rogers declined to answer
This ended the direct evidence and
Mr.. Hadley asked that all the questions
to which Mr.. Rogers had declined to
answer be certified to the supreme
court Mr.. Hadley said he might want
TO call Mr.. Rogers later and he was
excused.
Mr. Rogers, however returned to
the stand and said;
con Saturday afternoon I was asked.
do YOU know Walter c. Teagle2'
want to say now that the man I sup
posed was meant was John Teagle
whom know.
Mr.. HadIey brought out that Mr. Rog-
ers knew that John Teagle was mem
Der Of Scoheld. Schurmer & Teagle and
IS ia the oil business
Did you find out that Walter C.
Teagle is a member Of the foreign com
mittee of the Standard Oil company.
Mr. Rogers started to answer but the
objection of his counsel stopped him.
rs it not funny that you do not
lznow?"
Mf. Rogers made an answer so low
is to be unheard.
sT want YOU to treat this matter with
the seriousness which your position war
rants" said Mr.. Hadley-
In reply to questions Mr. Rogers said:
''I understand Walter G. Teagle is
connected with some foreign business. ]