The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-05-29
In the Custer Suit Brought by
State of Missouri.
THE MILLIONAIRE IS EXCITED
When Pinned Down to Specific
Answers by Counsel
He Indignantly Pounds the
Desk With His Fist.

Rockefeller, retired head of the dis
solved Standard Oil company, was
placed on the witness stand here late
Tuesday afternoon to tell whether he
believed the company had been really
dissolved under the decree OF the
United States supreme court
The aged oil millionaire could not
be induced at all times to give direct
answers to questions, but made IN
dignant denial of all suggestions that
there had been any effort to evade the
decree of the court.
Mr.. Rockefeller appeared as wit
ness in the action brought nominally
by the state of Missouri to compel the
inspectors of the election of the
stockholders of the Waters-Pierce OIL
company at st. Louis last February
to vote the proxies of the Rockefeller
and other Standard OIL interests,
which had named Standard Oil men
as officers of the company. Tne IN
spectors refused on the ground that
to do so would violate the dissolution
decree of the supreme court OF the
United States and of the decision OF
the Missouri supreme court ousting
the Standard Oil company OF Indiana
from the former state. The Waters
Pierce interests alleged in fighting TO.
prevent the Standard Oil representa-
tives from gaining control of the COM
pany that the manner in which the
Standard Oil interests had observed
the decree of the United States was
"farcical."
est man in the world" was subjected
to a grilling by Samuel Untermyer,
counsel for the Waters-Pierce inter-
ests, that caused the witness to pound
his fists on the table to emphasize
his indignant denials of pointed
questions as to whether the decree
of the court had been in fact car
ried out.
Did you ever have a discussion
with John d. Archibald as to now
these subsidiaries should be cut loose
and still held tight?'" inquired the
Waters-Pierce attorney
He Happened TO Know.
There was never any thought of
cutting loose and holding tight, Mr.
Rockefeller almost shouted. Il hap
pen to know about that"
Mr.. Rockefeller had previously
made the statement that he had never
read the United States supreme court
decree. although he knew ABOUT IT,
"in a general way"
Mr.. Untermeyer had the utmost diff
Guilty throughout the examination 20
get him to answer questions by yes
or mo-" Mr.. Rockefeller persisted in
giving his own answers in his own
way, nor could he be induced to change
his tactics even after Commissioner
Walter S. Jacobs, appointed to take the
testimony, had instructed him to give
a direct answer. Finding the effort
hopeless, the examining attorney re-
marked that If the witness were
asked If the sun was shining outside,
MI Rockefeller would not give di-
rect answer. He would say instead,
that the moon was about to RISE"
Both Mr.. Untermeyer and Commits
sioner Jacobs found frequent occasion
to object to the prompting" of George
W. Murray, Mr.. Rockefeller's personal
counsel, Mr.. Untermeyer declaring that
he was influencing the witness an
swers Mr.. Untermeyer drove hare a.
Mr. Rockefeller to get him to explain
the plan adopted for the dissolution OF
the Standard Oil company and how it
was that the "old company" named the
directors and officers of the segregated
constituent companies.
Others Knew Best.
After declaring that he had given
the reorganization of these companies
no attention and that he had turned
his Waters-Pierce holdings over to
"the gentlemen in charge of the re-
what to do" Mr.. Rockefeller, who had
been talking in a gentle, well modu-
lated voice, was asked the question az
to whether he had discussed a plan to
"cut loose and hold tight" 1t was here
that he brought his fist down on the
table to emphasize his indignant de-
nia1
1.-The matter of these reorganizations
is something 1 have given no attention
at ALL" he added.
'Then how do you know that IL IN
being managed so as to cut loose and
hold tight, If you say you don't know
anything about it?'' pursued Mr.. I'm
termeyer.
How do you know it, since you tell
us now you don't know how 1T has
been done?"
Il think you are making a mistake
in claiming-in representing what I
undertook to say" replied the wit
ness.
You say you don't know how it
was done. You tell us now you don't
know how this disintegration was be-
ing done? Am I right about that. or
am / wrong? / want you to answer
me that. That is a plain question.
Either you do know OF you do not
know how this is done?"
''I have nothing to do with that
work at ALL
"Do you know how it is being
done, yes or nor"
IT don't know the particular steps
taken in each case
do you know how the business of
the companies is being arranged ?"
IT do"
Insists on Names
Now, from whom do you know it?
What individual has told you and ex-
planned to you the way In which these
former subsidiary companies' business
is being arranged? Give his name"
about that particular thing in that
particular way. They are all being
arranged in the same way. and that
U1V-s