The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1906-01-08
STANDARD OIL
WON'T TELL
Hearing Largely Made Up
OF Wrangling.
LAWYER GETS INTO A FUSS
With Commissioner sanborn- Supreme
Court Of New York to Be Appealed
to by Attorney General Of
Missouri.
LAWYER GETS INTO A FUSS

i New York, Jan SIT developed sat.
iaday from the questions asked by AKA
torney General Herbert st Hadley of
Missouri Of Henry X. Rogers, vice pres
llent and director Of The STANDARD oil
eo, ri New Jersey, that one Of AIT. Had
ley's chief purposes III conducting All
examination 81 officers of that company
az New York i to frd ont whether
that company owns q controlling inter-
/ est IN the Standard Oil Go. OF Indiana,
the Waters-Pierce Oil CO. Of Missouri
/ and the Republic OH 20. This, MI. Had
] ley said, he regarded as step hi the
I direction Of excluding the three latter
companies from doing business in Mis-
souri,, TO most of the important qIes
tons asked BY MIR. Hadiey bearing dis
reetly on the question OF stock owner
ship, MI. Rogers declined to give any
answer, ION the advice Of counsel," ana
Mr. Hadley requested Commissioner
Frederick IL. Sanborn to certify the
questions and Mr.. Rogers refusal to
the supreme court OF New York for
determination whether OF not Mr.. Rog
ers must answer them or be adiudged
in contempt. Mr.. Rogers declined to
reply to questions as to whether he con
trolls any stock IN the Waters Pierce OIL
Co, whether NJ Van Buren, OF New York
holds q controlling interest in that com
pany for the STANDARD Oil CO. Of New
Jersey, whether the New Jersey com
pany controls the Standard Oil Co. OF
Indiana on the Waters Pierce Co., and
whether two.thirds Of the dividends oil
the Waters Pierce Co. are not paid to
H. M Tilford, who. Mir Rogers said.
has an Office at 26 Broadway, New
York.
Mr., TEadley said Saturday night that
ne would take al these questions to
the supreme court Of New Work state
70 secure an order for MI. Rogers To
show cause why he should not answer
them Air. Rogers did say, however,
that he never heard OF an agreement
between the standard Oh Go. Of Indiana
and the Waters Pierce GO. to divide
the trade OF Missouri, and that lie did
not believe it was ever made. Mir. Had.
ley said atterward that he had an IN
junction against such division but
that he was unable in Missouri to show
that the officers Of the Oh company that
they were owned by the same party. !
This, lie said, Is what lie Is aiming to
show in the New York hearing MI. |
Rogers declined Saturday to answer the
question whether he had transaction
with II. Clay Pierce in 1904 by which |
Mr.. Rogers secured AL or part OF tie |
Waters-Pieree Oil Co.'S stock for the /
Standard Oil Co. OF New Jersey OF for
the Indiana company Mr.. Rogers was |
still on the stand when the hearing adj |
journed until today.
The hearing Saturday was largely a |
day Of wrangling between lawyers, OF I
which the following is an illustration
Do You know who owns majority /
of the stock OF the Standard Oil Co Of |
lndianap asked Mir Hadley William
Rove, q lawyer, advised Mr. Rogers /
not 60 answer, and Commissioners SAN T
born told him he would have to request |
him TO leave the room If he interrupted /
again. Mr.. Rowe said he knew his
rights, and would continue to advise
the witness. The commissioner told him
TO leave the room, but Mr.. Rowe de-
elined TO do so. The commissioner stop
ped proceedings and said they would
not go on unless Mr.. Rowe left. Il
should like to be in his place, said
Mr.. Rogers. Mr.. Hadley suggested that
Mr.. Rowe be allowed To remain, but
The commissioner said he would consent
only If Mr.. Rowe agreed to stop inter
'upting. The hearing then adjourned.
Commissioner Sanbon said, in resum-
ng the session late in the afternoon, /
hat Mr., Rowe was personal counsel for
.eyeral witnesses, and would be allowed
% sit near them and advise them. He
sat near Mr.. Rogers. The question
Mr.. Rogers knows who owns o.
holds q majority Of the stock Of that
company was read. The commissioner ]
'equested him to answer. Mr.. Rogers
leclined. Mr.. Hadley asked him ii he
declined because his answer might sub
eet him TO a criminal prosecution. Il
rave no conception of such a condition
# things" replied Mr. Rogers. Il de
line for personal reasons" what are
your personal reasonsg" persisted Mr..
Iadley. Counsel for the companies OBJ
ected, and MIR. Rogers conferred with
Mr. Rowe. Mr.. Rogers declined to am
wer, and Mr. lIadley asked him again
4 he declined because it might subject
lim 70 prosecution, penalty or forfeit
ire. Il cannot conceive such cond-
ion Of things, but decline to answer
N advice Of COUNSEL SIS that your
,nly reason" "That is my answer,
aid Mr.. Rogers. ''iIave you any other
-eason than the advice Of counsel not
% tell who controls the stock of the
standard Oil Go. Of lndiana8 4 be.
ieve it is within my right to decline to