The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-10-06

offer to you, claiming to represent the
Standard Oil, that we may take steps |
to quiet this last most vicious of the |
many false and sensational stories TO |
which you have given currency.
Respectfully,
I'm. F. ELLIOTT,
VIRGIL p. KLINE,
Attorneys for Standard Oil COM
pany.'"
Monnett's Reply.
after waiting until April Is, a
period of twenty-six days, he filed in
ment styled, "A Bill of Information
This is merely a rambling state
ment that somebody had approached
him with a suggestion that there
would be at least the sum of 100000
for him if he would agree to discon-
Standard Oil company. He still
named nobody, giving the same rea-
son.
1.-The attorneys for the Standard i'm
mediately filed with the court a mo-
ton requiring the attorney general to
name the men, who, he claimed, had
approached him. and to appoint dis
interested person to Investigate and re-
port promptly to the supreme court
the truth or falsity of the charge.
After waiting twenty-five days he
| filed a second document in which he
named as his friend who had at
tempted to bride him, Mr.. c. B. Squires
(Who had never in any manner been
connected with the Standard Oil COM
pany), formerly of Cleveland, but then
or New York. The friend named
promptly and of his own motion, pub
licly denied the charge, and since its
recent revival in n signed interview
IN the New York World again prompt
~ ana emphatically stated the charges
OF Monnett were absolutely false. In
10 Tor 10 Il
| after the supreme court sustained the
demand of the attorneys for the Stan
dard Oil company that the name of
the alleged briber be made public
Monnett came to him, stated that he
was in a corner, and asked the privi-
lege of naming him as the briber
Neither of the documents filed with
the supreme court directly charged
the Standard Oil company or any of
| the officers or agents, with any COM
pnclty In the alleged bribery: The
amendment simply stated that the said
Squires had claimed to represent GER
tain of these officials.
No charges having been made upon
which it could act, the supreme court
| therefore on the 18th day of Decem-
per, 1893. entered an order upon its
journal, as follows:
Ordered, that the information
herein filed by the encouragement on
the 18th day of April, A. D. 1899 be
stricken from the files, it not appear
ing that there is any competent evil
the alleged offer to the attorney-gen-
eral'
This was the action not of a single
judge, but of the entire court.
Mr.. Monnett has chosen to connect
my name with an order preventing his
taking further testimony The order to
which he refers had nothing whatever
to do with the bribery charges. A
| master commissioner has been ap-
pointed by the court, before whom the
parties were to take all their evidence
In the main case. In January, 1899. he
filed a motion to have this order re-
scinded and the witnesses brought di-
rectly before the supreme court. That
application was met by an answer and
affidavitS.
II appeared at that hearing The
court had no information on the face
of his application, the answer thereto
and the affidavtts regularly filed. From
these it appears Mr.. Monnett instead OF
taking his testimony before the COM
missioner appointed for that purpose
was takino dispositions under notices
issued for the purpose, that the evil
dence he was taking had not pertinency
or bearing upon the matters in ltiga-
| ton before the court and that he was
simply usin~ his position in the effort
| to create some sensation If possible.
Upon full hearing the court ordered
| that he discontinue the deposition pro-
| ceedings and complete his evidence be-
fore the commissioner as the court has
already directed him to do.
This is the only basis for the charge
| which Is utterly false and untrue, that
there was any suppression of the TAX
! ing of testimony. The charge is equally
/ false that the court or any member OF
| it had any information from council
and at the hearing it was so stated to
| Mr.. Monnett.
1.-THE statement has appeared as
| emanating from Mr.. Monnett that %
| boxes of day books and ledgers had
| been burned. This statement is alb
solutely false There was no evidence
at any time that a single day book or
account of any kind was or ever had
been burned at all, and the dispositions
which Mr.. Monnett took in his EFFORT
to establish that fact, utterly failed in
their purpose"