Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-10-10
TRUST IS NOW
UPON TRIAL At
HOME OF HEAD
Cause of Rockefeller and the
Standard Oil Company.
AUTHENTICITY OF PROOF
AUTHENTICITY OF PROOF
Matter of the Uterances of President
of Corporation.
PLEADINGS AND TESTIMONY
Counsel tates That Corporation Has
No Face but False Face
Mantle to Cover.

The trial of the cause against the
Standard Oil Company for con-
spiracy against trade has begun. 1t
promises to attract national atten-
ton, and will doubtless be very long
drawn out. In the pleadings today
it developed that an effort will be
made to prove that Rockefeller was
not responsible for the acts that are
alleged to be conspiracy to business
interests.
FINDLAY. Ohio, October 1O.--It is the in
tention of the prosecution in the trial here
of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio for
conspiracy against trade to occupy the en-
tire time today In the submission of docu-
mentary evidence. This evidence consists
Of the pleadings and testimony in the two
suits against the Standard Oil trust before
the supreme court of the state in 1892 and
1897 part of which was read to the jury
yesterday.
Attorney V. P. Kline, conducting the case
for the Standard maintains there Is no
competency in rehearsing this ancient his
tory" but Prosecutor David and his as
sistant Mr.. Phelps. insist it IS necessary
that the jury may get the proper perspec-
tive of the case.
The prosecution does not expect to put
any witnesses on the stand before tomor-
row.
r. L. Bates and John O'Brien of Lima,
both connected with the Buckeye Pipe
Line Company, were subpoenaed by the
prosecution today, in addition to their list
OF witnesses. AS yet the defense has pre-
scented no list of witnesses.
Before the jury brought into court,
on Its converting at 0 o'clock today, at
torneys for the prosecution and defense
held a preliminary argument touching the
competency of admitting the testimony of
Mr. Rockefeller given in the previous trial.
Mr. Phelps, for the prosecution, maintain
ed that this evidence by Mr.. Rockefeller
was highly material. and, in fact, the very
essence of the case in trial
Question of Proof
In Directing Mr.. Kline said he would not
concede even the authenticity OF the state
ments Mr.. Phelps retorted that Mr..
Rockefeller was then, as now, president OF
the defendant company, and what he then
said the trust had done, and we can prove
he said it, is competent evidence.
Mr. Rockefeller has not been shown to
be, and in fact is not president of this de-
PENDANT company asserted Attorney Iroup
for the defense. THE statements he then
made were years before this cause of ac-
ton The things charged in this suit are
things done in Hancock county since 1903
How can such statements be competent evil
dence2"
In reply Mr.. Phelps declared that in the
economy of the defendant company there
was no way it could be faced.
"A corporation has no face except false
face 1t is a mantle that covers the ind
viduals in It, so that the head of the com
pany, its president, when he speaks, that Is
the language of the corporation ITSELF
Reiterating that the evidence was not au-
thentcated 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. If the proposed procedure
prevailed he said the deposition OF any Off,
Ger of any corporation might be taken. GER
tilted to before the clerk of any court and
then taken into another jurisdiction and ad-
mitted as evidence In a criminal proceeding.
Manner of Doing Business
Judge Banker interrupted to remark that
the evidence was only offered to show the
manner OF doing business at that time
which. of course. would not convict the de-
PENDANT within the time present charge but
simply to show that such a trust was
formed.
1T is no excuse for evidence that il will
do no harm" replied Mr.. Kline.
would not the admission of the presi-
dent of the corporation be conclusive as to
the manner 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 to show either the
guilt OF innocence of the defendant
Mr.. Tolls. for the defense, replied to
this that IL K was not for that purpose X
was surely incompetent evidence Mr.. Tolls
maintained that the state by law was alb
solutely barred from taking deposition in
a criminal case; hence. il was travesty to
taken in another case
Ellis Thought Of Duty.
Attorney General ELS said he could not
do his duty to the state If he did not give
his judgment in the case. Clearly in my
opinion, this evidence is admissible he
said. He further maintained that In giving
the testimony in question Mr.. Rockefeller
was acting for the corporation. and that II
he could not. and did not. 50 act there
would be no way whatever of proving any
acts OF a corporation
Judge Banker admitted the testimony as
competent. His ruling at the con-
cusiOn of an argument OF an hour and a
half.
s'If the answers of Mr. Rockefeller" he
said tended to prove any act within the
tons might be valid, but it Is simply de-