The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-01-07
q as . Standard Oil Magnate Declines to Answer. ADVISED BY HIS COUNSEL Qualification to the Supreme Court
 is Asked. Attempts to Discover Who owns the ynriou. Standards and the Wa ters-Pierce Company Frustra- ted by silence of the Witt
 ness.
ADVISED BY HIS COUNSEL

l New York. Jan. 6.-It developed from the questions by Attorney Herpert S' HadIey of Missouri of Henry II Hos. CTS, vice-president and director ol .tns Standard oil Company of New jersey, that one of MT. Hadley's chief purposes In conducting an examination oi oh- cers of that company in this city IS to find out whether that company owns a controlling interest in the Standaru Oil Company of Indiana. the Waters Pierce Company of Missouri ana tle Repuhlin Oil Company This Mir. Had ley said tonight he regards as a step in the direction of excluding the three latter companies from doing business in Missouri.
 To the most important questions ask ed by MT. Hadley bearing directly on the question of stock ownership. Mr. Rogers declined to give any answer. lon the advice of counsel" and Mr. Hadley requested Commissioner Fred erick H.. Sanborn to certify the ques- tfons and Mir Rogers's refusal to the Supreme Court of this State for de termination as to whef her or not Mir. Rogers must answer them or be ad judged In contempt.
 Refuses to Make Reply.
 Mr. Rogers declined to reply to questions as to whether he controls the Waters Pierce Oil Company. |. York, holds controlling interest in that company for the Standard Oil Company. of New York; whether the New Jersey Company controls the % the Waters Pierce Company and whether two-thirds of the dividends of the waters-Pierce Company are not paid teH. M Ttlford, whe& Mr: Rogers sad. has an ofice at 26 Broadway, this city. headquarters of Stalsqard Oli. Mr.. Rogers did say. however nat fe never heard of an agreement pe- tween the standard Oil Company. cf Indiana, and the Waters-Pierce Corn-s pany to divide the trade of Missouri and that he did not believe it was eyer made. .s.t s MT. Iadley said afterward. that he had an injunction against such a d. vision, but that he was unable, in Mis- souri, to show from the nfEsears of the oil companies that they are owned by the same parties That is what he is aiming to show in Kew York hearing. Mir Rogers was still on the stand when they adjourned until Monday. What part of the oil business in Indiana are you acquainted with?" Mir. HadIey asked Mir. Rogers on the wit ness stand.
 Familiar win Dividend.
 T might modestly say am familiar with dividend or co. I could not
  very good on dates"
 DO you know whether the Standard oil Company of Indiana refines oil as well as sells it."
 T know it by hearsay. not by actual observation"
 Was your visit to Kansas in connec- tion with the Standard oil Company of Indiana.
 T do not recall much about Indiana. My business was largely in Oklahoma. We rely largely for the collection of oil in the Indian Territory and other terri tory"
 Mir Rogers said that he does not re- call examining refinery at Neodesha. Did you examine any refinery in Kansas?"
 ''Counsel objected.
 T decline to answer" said Mir. Rog- CTS T assume you have no other reason than the advice of counsel" said MT. Tiadley.
 T do not know of any"
 Why did you not Favor Missouri with your presence at that timer"
 T was not invited"
 Permit me now in behalf of the state'to extend you a formal invitation. Was that your only reason?'
 T did not know you had so much authority as that" said Mir. Rogers.
 Declines Co answer.
 Did you find that the Waters Pierce Company sold oil in Oklahoma and In- dian Territory whiIe tne Standard Oil Company of Indiana did not?'
 T decline to ansgwer on advice of counsel
 Although instructed Sy the commis- sioner to answer, MT. Rogers declined and Mir. Hadley asked that the Ques. tion be certified to the Supreme Court Mir. Rogers said he dio not think he went to Kansas City, Kansas, on that trip. He had no distinct recollection oi being at LeaVenwortn in a railroad wreck as he Was asleeA, then. He saic he did not recall being advised that Il he got Into Missouri he might be sub poanaed in tnls case.
 Mir. Rogers said he did not keep out O Missouri to evade summons. ' haC on occasion nor desire to go." "You know you had a refinery neal Kansas City did you not?"
 MT Rogers replied; T heard ther, was one. 1 never saw 1t. Inasmuch a! I have been in the refining bushes! since 1861, an oil refihery IS about a, much attraction for .ne as Carrie Ma tion."
 DO you know of the existence O the Waters Pierce Oil Company"
 By reputation, yes"
 Did you learn when in Oklahoma and Indian Territory that that com nany sold oil thero ana that the stand ard oil Company Of Indiana jf whlcI YOU are director did not?" asked MI Hadley.
 counsel objected.
 ~I decline to answer on the advic of counsel"
 Knew of the Republic.
 DO you know of the existence of tn Renubiic oil Company or of the firH of scoheld. schurmer and Teagle?' "Yes"
 Did you have any part in negotiat inc inc sale of that company to tn Renublic oil Company"
 q did not"
 Mir Rogers said he did not knov walter T. Teagle MT. Hadley aske, if any one named Teagle represents tn standard oil Company.
 T decline to answer on the advic of counsel"
 "What business have you ever trans acted or known of being transacted D. the Board of Directors of Standard oi S'Arnnanv of IndianaT