The Charles Mix new era. (Wagner, Charles Mix County, S.D.) 1???-1911, 1907-10-04
DIo OIL TRUST PRoF,T1
0ew York Hearing shows ProAt ~
e49O,3lE,D3S In seven Years.

-
Few York Hearing shows ProAt ~
e400,3i5,B1s In seven Years.
The hearing before Special Federal
Referee Ferriss Of Missouri in the gov
eminent suit ~ dissolve the great oil com
bination was begun ~ New York, with
Attorney Frank II. kellogg representing
the government and John G. Milhurn and
others as counsel for the Standard Oil
Company. Mr.. Kellogg submitted in evil
dence statistics complied by the Standard
Oil officials, showing that the Standard
Oil Company of New Jersey had earned
profits in the last seven years ag.regat-
ing xi90,311,93t, and that during the
same time dividends had been paid to the
amount of $30S .359. 403. These profits
came from the plants owned by the parent
company. as well as from those Of the
subsidiaries controlled by IL. This was
the FIRST time In the history of the oil
trust that a record OF its earnings entire
had been made public. Acting Controller
Fay of the Standard said there were
nineteen subsidiary companies. and gave
their names. The evidence is being taken
for use in the Circuit Court at st. Louis
where the dissolution suit. under the
antitrust law, is TO be prosecuted. Mr..
kellogg. among other things. wanted the
company to produce the minutes of the
various meetings ut which the absorption
OF smaller companies was arranged, but
the counse for the compa was inclined
to resist.
The examination Of Charles M. Pratt,
secretary Of the trust. brought out the
fact that the parent company had trans
ferred it's 100000 holdings in the
Waters-pierce Oil Company Of Texas to
4 son-in.law of Vice President Archbold
from 1901 to 1907, during the custer pro-
ceedings brought against the subsidiary
by the State of Texas, and that only
$4,000 in cash was paid for the stocks,
the remainder being in the form of a note
which was never fully taken up, the prof
its of the Waters-Pierce conpany going
toward the payment of the note. Mr.
Pratt admitted that this transaction did
not appear on the books Of the Standard.
the accounts being kept under the title.
&C. NJ. Pratt Investment" Mr.. Pratt
explained that by this arrangement he
held the stocks for the trust merely as a
convenience. and when asked If it was
not done to avoid the antitrust laws OF
Texas he replied. Not that l know Of"
fluctuations were also verified showing
enormous earnings OF subsidiaries, among
which those of the Standard Oil Company
of Indiana appeared most remarkable.
This corporation on a capitalization of
s ,0O0,0OO made profits In 1906 amount
Ing to S10,5l6,0s2, and last year paid to
the parent company S4,495.5OO. This
amounted for at least one year TO the re-
markable profit of 1000 per cent. Mr..
Kellogg also brought out evidence show
ing how the. New York branch had been
Systematically drained by saddling upon
1t enormous liabilities at the same time
that its assets were greatly increased.
Counsel Milburn disclosed one line of de-
Tense by giving notice that the trust
would object to any testimony bearing
upon acts committed prior to July 2,
1880, when the Sherman law vent into
effect.