The Washington herald., 1907-09-19

teFf IN Dig DeHOmimatOEs
New York, Sept. lS.-Charles NJ. Pratt,
director and secretary Of the stand
ard Oh Company OF New Jersey ana
a director in the STANDARD Oil Company
Of New York testified before Prosecutor
Kellogg to-day, in the examination be-
ing held 10 secure evidence for the suit
TO dissolve the Standard trust insti-
tuted iG the Federal Circuit Court at
St. Louis, how the STANDARD holding
| corporation had transferred all its
StG00jJ holdings in the Waters-Pierce
or Company Of Texas 20 second
party during the custer proceedings
brought against the Waters-Pierce con
eern. and then secured again its interest
in that company when final action Of
the Texas court had been taken. He
said that NJ n Van Buren. who is a
son-in-law Of John D. Archbold. a vice
President Of the Standard, was the one
who held the 2.747 shares Of Waters
Pierce from 1894 20 1877.
Van Buren paid 100000 for The stocks
in ls0i, Pratt said, giving $125ool in
cash and his note for the remainder
The note was never taken Up. and in
Is17 the Standard company bought back
the Waters-Pierce stocks for the amount
remaining unpaid Van Burn did not
make anything on the seven years OWL
ership Of the stocks, said Pratt. AZ no
time did the words 'Waters-PIerce" aD-
pear on the Iedgars Of the STANDARD
company. Accounts were kept under the
title. che @. NJ Pratt investment"
stocks ia PIerce's Name.
The Standard OH Campany's secretary
was led into a consideration Of the Waters
Pierce relations with the Standard by
KeIIogg's asking If the Waters-Pierce
stocks purchased by Pratt in 1883 and aD-
/ pearinE on the books Of the Standard
company IN that year as an asset were
/ held ln Prstt's name. He replied that al
/ the dividends from the Waters-Pfe-ce
stock passed through his hands. but that
the stock was in the name Of H Clay
Pierce. Of 81. Louis. The stock certificates
were indorsed in blank by Pierce and de-
/ livered 20 him. Pratt said.
Kellogg asked Pratt II II were not true
that when the Waters-Pierce company
was ousted from Texas in 1893 and the
Standard company was holding 2.7H
shares % its stock, the Texas concern
/ did not reorganize in MAY. 1870. with the
same capital stock OF $4,000 and sell the
same number Of shares Of the new COM
pany 10 the STANDARD Pratt admitted
that the shares appearing on the books
OF the Standard in 1889 were those OF the
/ old company. and that the same number
( were acquired in the second corporation.
Merely rs Convenience"
The government prosecutor wanted TO
/ know in what way they became the prop
I erty Of the Standard Pratt said that no
held them for that corporation as trustee,
but he gave no declaration Of trust or
made no obIigati tieH-to the Standard COM
pany for SO doing. KeIlogs wanted TO
/ know why the Standard did not hold the
/ stocks directly.
/ I held them merely as convenience"
[ said Pratt They trust me and I trusted
THAT arrangement was not made in
order 10 avoid the antitrust laws Of
/ Texas?7 queried kellogg.
I Not that 1 know Of" replied Pratt.
When his questiouer wanted to know
/ why the c. NJ Pratt account did not ap-
I pear on the books of the Standard be-
tween 1904 and I5J7. the Standards sec
retary said IL was because he had sold
/ the block of Waters-Pierce stock TO M
, NJ. Van BJreu. of New York. Van Buren,
/ paid S125.01o in cash and gave his note
/ for the remainder OF the 100000 pUT-
chase price. The cash and the note were
turned over 10 the Standard Oil Company.
said Pratt
Trusts Immense Profit.
The Waters-Pierce stock was then
paying the Standard over $5S.U00 a month.
and in the year 1871 it paid S.S00O0.
didn't it?"
I think that is So said Pratt.
"Can you give any reason why the
/ Standard oil Company should sell at that
time such valuable stock for $L0GO0?"
I 1T was a business transaction" replied
/ the secretary. Then he continued TO ex-
plain, under KeIlogg's questioning. that
during the three years that Van Buren
/ held the stock the dividends from it were
applied on his note held by the STANDARD
/ oil Company, but the oil company bought
/ back the shares before the note was
taken up. Pratt did not think that the
/ dividends received by Van Buren during
bis holding amounted 10 the price he paid
/ for the stock.
/ do you know Of any other instance
where the Standard oil Company has
sold a large block of stocks paying what
/ those stocks did 10 any man not con-
nected with the concern asked kellogg.
/ Counsel Milburn, for the Standard wit
/ nesses, interposed an objection TO the
| question, and il was unanswered.
Gets Big share of Earnings.
A second important discovery made by
the government prosecutor in the course
of to-day's Investigations had 10 do with
the remarkable earnings Of some OF the
subsidiary companies in which the Stand
ard OH Company has controlling inter-
est. and the relations between the earn
ings OF these subsidiary companies and
the holding corporation.
Clarence G. Fay. acting comptroller Of
the Standard Company Of New Jersey.
was asked 70 verify tabulations made
from the Standards yearly reports of the
/ earnings Of the subsidiaries. The records
| given to Kellogg by the Standard Com