The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-06-20
Thinks He Should Be Knighted
Instead of Prosecuted.
AMAZED" HE VOLUNTEERS
Not Being Called as Witness He
Gives Testimony Anyway.
Then Gets Angry at Questions
PrOpOunded by Attorneys.

chicago, June 2U--AIIeT lure
room of peppery exchanges betweel
Attorney Grosveno". representing tn
government IN the antitrust sui
against the Harvester cOmDsny, anc
George w. Perkins, chairman of th'
finance committee If the company
who was a witness, the latter com
planned bitterly 20 -epE-ters of the Mt
titude of the government toward I'm
and the company.
The former Darther OF the late J. p
Morgan had been under cross-eXami-
nation all forenoon, and when dis
missed without redirect examination
he was surrounded by newspaper mer
and others.
What has been a matter of con-
slant amazement to me has been the
discourteous attitude of the trial., ne
declared. From the first L expected
that the government would cal me as
a witness, and I was never so surprised
in my life as when the government
closed it's case without calling on me
The only course then left to me was
to go on the stand of my own voIlt1on,
and the moment I take the stand the
prosecutor warns me that anything
NAV saw may be used against me in a
criminal suit which may follow. L go
on the stand voluntarily and the gov
ernment takes every advantage of me
on cross examination. as If had al
ready been criminally indicted and by
every means of insinuation and in
nuendo attempts to reflect on my in
tegrity and cast doubt on my test1-
mOny.
Here in this country I have been
prosecuted by my government. Just
t.. show the difference in its attitude,
as compared with other governments,
let me say that last year the head of
the Massey Harris company of To-
ronto. Mr.. Jones was knighted by
the king of England for doing the
some thing 1 have done in this coun-
try, the building up of an immense
foreign field of sale for harvesting
machinery.
lone would think from the attitude
of the government that where we went
q blight followed, where on the con-
trary wherever we have gone the land
has bloomed."
During cross examination Mr.. Per-
kins answering questions, testified
that he had not sought to purchase
the Mccormick company alone be-
cause large as it was, it was not big
enough to conquer unaided the for
elgn field. The fact that the COM
panies which he went after controlled
IS per cent of the business in the
United States did not enter into his
consideration. He asserted he merely
wanted a big capital, big enough to
get the foreign trade.
THE capitalization of the Harvester
company was $120,O00,000," said At
torney Grosvenor. isn't it a fact all
the actual cash put in was $1O,OOO,-
OOO7''
mo. sir. it is no a fact" responded
the witness. THE s120, 900, 900 was di-
vided into s6O,OOO,OOO properties and
$50, 900. 900 cash.
]. Pierpont Morgan & Co, he said,
took 81, ,OOO,O 900 of company stock.
How much did you take personality
asked Mr. Grosvenor.
I took all 1 could possibly buy, and
I stin have it. I might add that 1
have a larger percentage of my private
fortune in this enterprise than in any
other and 1 have it because 1 believe
It to be a safe and creditable busi-
ness"
rs it in your name?"
II object. Mr.. Grosvenor, to your 60
ing into my private affairs in public.
If you wish, 1 will send you list of
all my holdings in the company. My
wife also is large holder of this
stock
The lawyer asked that the list be
furnished.
Chicago, June 2O-As George w.
Perkins, former partner of the late J.
P. Morgan, viewed it from the witness
stand in the Harvester company anti
trust hearing today, Edwin P. Gros-
venor, attorney for the government
knows but little of deals The par
tcular deal in question was incidental
to the formation of the International
Harvester company, Ca project father
ed by Mr.. Perkins) particularly with
regard to efforts of the witness to buy
the Mccormick, Deering, Plano, Os-
borne and Milwaukee Harvester COM
panies. Mr.. Perkins, under cross ex-
animation by Attorney Grosvenor
stood by his testimony that these con-
Germs were under consideration, but
not these alone.
1.-The title was successfully consum-
mated in the case of four companies
on the same date was not it % sug-
gested Attorney Grosvenor.
mo, sir: not in the way you want
me to say. 1 was working on the
proposition simultaneously, but 1
think they were not brought to con-
clusiOnS on the same day.
Mr.. Grosvenor stated that the four
contracts We're all signed on July 2S,
1902, and Mr.. Perkins explained that
a deal might be completed without
being actually put on paper
That was Il formality.
Didn't you get all the men together
and discuss the proposition? ?'' persist
ed Grosvenor.
That" replied the witness with
emphasis, would have been the last
thing in the world 1 would have done.
MI Grosvenor, you cannot know much
ABOUT deals to suggest such a thing"