You are on page 1of 14

'.

LIBRARY OF·

PRINCETON tiNIVERSITY .

. ,

Digitized by Coogle

Digitized by Google

List of Witnet!l8eH

WASHINGTON PRINTING OFFICE 1909

Digitized by Go

LIBRARY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

PRESENTED BY~.J._

"CJ'~'9'~'

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THK EASTERN DIVISION OF THE EASTERN .JlHHCIAL DISTRICT OF MISSOtlRI

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER,

v.

iSTANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY

. ET AL., DEFENDANTH

DEFEND_A_~TS' TESTIMON"~

On behalj of the defendants:

Mr. JOHN G. MILBURN. Mr. MORITZ ROSENTHAl.

Mr. JOHN S. MILLER, Mr. M. F. ELLIOTT, Mr. MARTIN CAREY, Mr. F. L. CRAWFORD, Mr. DOUGLAS CAMPBELL, Mr. C. W. MARTYN.

On behalf oj the petitioner:

Mr. FRANK B. KELLOGG, Mr. C. 13. MORRISOl\ Mr. J. H.\ RWOOD GRA \"E.<;;

VOLUME 17

With List of Witnl'.,sl·s

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1909

Digitized by Coogle

.. : :.: : ... ~:: :.:: :

.: .-:... . .. .. . - - .. . ... -. - .....

....

: :~

' ..

:. :

: .: : : ..... : .-! : :

. .. . .

. ; .. -: :: .. : ... :.: .

1 ~

I

I

.. . .

' ..

Digitized by Coogle

ARCHBOLD.

3341

Mr. ROSENTHAL. A good many of them are shown there:

Mr. KELLOGG. Yes, but not all of them.

A. I suppose these were the active properties at the dates given. Mr. ROSENTHAl,. That is right.

Q. The books of the trustees show all properties acquired which were liquidated or dismantled or went out of business, do they not ¥A. I could not say. Possibly they did for the period which they covered.

Q. The books of the companies owned and controlled by the trustees show the same thing, don't they 1-A. I suppose they did at one time, at any rate.

Q. Many of those companies are still in existence, like the Atlantic Refining Company - Standard Oil companies y- 12936 A. Oh, yes, the companies are still in existence, but whether the books are kept forever or not I do not know.

Q. The balance sheets of t.he Atlantic Refining Company show quite a number of companies acquired and dismantled or liquidated Y-A. Possibly so.

Q. Don't the other companies' books 1-A. I should think they might.

Q. "'''-ill you please produce a list or statement of all corporations, firms, or businesses engaged in some branch of the oil business, acquired by the Standard Oil trustees or by the companies which they controlled during the life of the trust, from 1882 down to the organization of the Standard Oil in 1899 Y

Mr. ROSENTHAL. I shall have to object to that, upon the ground that it is not proper cross-examination, and it is not a proper request to make of a witness under cross-examination. If you want any such data as that, the way for you to get it is to get it when you come to your branch of the case, in the proper way.

Q. Please answer the question.-A. I will discuss the matter with counsel and be guided by them.

Q. Now, did you understand defendants' Exhibits 271, 272, 273, and 274 to be a complete list of all such companies and properties acquired Y

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Of just what the exhibits purport to be, Mr.

Kellogg.

Mr. KELLOGG. I understand they are not a complete list of all the companies acquired.

12937 A. I understand that under their various headings they are

complete.

Q. But they do not purport to cover all of the properties acquired and put out of business, do they Y-A. Oh, they are live properties, I take it, unless it is so differently stated.

Mr. ROSENTHAl,. Just use this as a memorandum [handing a paper ~to the witness 1.

~ Q. As I recollect, you testified in detail about a large number of the companies which appear on the paper which you have in your

Digitized by Coogle

3342

ARCHBOLD.

hand, and which companies are named in the trust agreement of 1882, Mr. Archbold, didn't you 1-A. I did; yes.

Q. Among others was the Acme Oil Company? Mr. ROSENTHAL. The Acme Oil Company of what 1

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Of New York, and the Acme Oil Company of Pennsvlvania.

Mr'-RosENTHAL. Mr. Archbold did not testify with respect to the Acme Oil Company of New York; that was covered by Mr. Rockefeller.

Q. Well, you testified in relation to the Acme Oil Company of Pennsvlvania 1-A. Yes.

Q. The Acme Oil Company of New York was organized by you individually, wasn't it 1

Mr. ROSENTHAL. I object to that upon the ground that it is cr055- examination upon a subject matter that was not touched upon by the direct examination.

Q .: Please answer the question.-A. I was one of the parties to its organization.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. With respect to any questions concerning 12938 the Acme Oil Company, may the record show the same stipulation ~

Mr. KELLOGG. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOSEJI;THAL. As was made in connection with similar objeetions l

Mr. KELLOGG. Yes, sir.

Q. That was the first company organized, wasn't it=-in 1875~A. The Acme Oil Company of New York?

Q. Yes.-A. It was organized in 187:;; yes.

Q. What was it organized for ?-A. It was organized to hold the properties of Porter, Moreland & Company and Bennett, Warner & Company, and to do a general buisness in manufacturing and selling oils.

Q. Did it not purchase the properties of Porter, Moreland & Company, Bennet, ·Warner & Company, Easterly & Davis, the Octave Oil Company, John Jackson?-A. I think those later companies were purchased later.

Q. 'VeIl, they were purchased by the Acme Oil Company, weren't they1-A. Yes; later.

Q. Very soon afterward.-A. But originally the properties consisted of Porter, Moreland & Company and Bennett, 'Varner & Company.

Q. Yes. It leased the refinery also of R. H. Lee, did it not ~-A.

It did for a period; yes. I don't remember the date.

Q. Where was the principal place of business of the Acme Oil Company 1-A. Its place of business, I suppose, was stated to be New York. Its refineries were located at Titusville, in Pennsylvania.

12939 Q. How many of these refineries were dismuntled-closed

up ~-A. I think they were mostly burned up.

Digitized by Coogle

ARCHBOLD.

3343

Q. Mostly burned up 1-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Some of them were closed up, were they noH-A. Well, they were closed up by fire, I think, practically all of them. They had an enormous fire at Titusville in the very early eighties, which burned up the refineries and came very near burning up the town.

Q. That was after 1881 or 1882, wasn't it ?-A. Yes, I think it

was; 1880, perhaps.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. The fire was in 1880, wasn't it? 'VITNESS. I think the fire was in 1880.

Q. 1880-that was five years after the Acme Oil Company acquired them ?-A. I think these larger works were all run for a period.

Q. How many were closed down ?-A. That I could not say positively.

Q. When was the Acme Oil Company of Pennsylvania organized ~-A. In 1879.

Q. What was that organized for?-A. It was organized for the purpose of taking over the Pennsylvania properties-such as was left of them.

Mr. MILBURN. From the Acme Oil Company of New York¥ WITNESS. From the Acme Oil Company of New York; yes.

Q. Now, during that time, from 1875 until 1882, isn't it a fact that it was understood that those were independent entirely of the Standard Oil Company.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Which ~

12940 Mr. KELLOGG. The two Acme oil companies.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Understood by whom ~ Mr. KELLOGG. Everybody.

A. I don't know about everybody.

Q. The public generally, I mean. You know what I mean, I think.-A. I don't know what everybody may have understood about it.

Q. Did you testify in relation to those, in 1879 ?-A. I believe I did.

Q. Did you testify that they were entirely independent of the Standard Oil Company?-A. I was testifying, I think, at that time with reference to the Acme of N ew York.

Q. Well, was it entirely independent of the Standard in 18791-A.

The Acme Oil Company of New York was organized in 1875, its stockholders being William Rockefeller, Charles Pratt & Company, 'Varden, Frew & Company, A. P. Bennett, and myself. They were the legal owners of the stock and named its board of directors, and my understanding was at that time that they were in legal control of the business and that it was not controlled by the Standard Oil Company.

Q. Isn't it a fact that the stock at that time was held for the benefit of the stockholders of the Standard Oil Company?-A. It was held in the names of these individuals and the legal ownership was in them. I so understood it and was so advised.

Digitized by Coogle

8844

ARCHBOLD.

Q. Didn't they have an agreement that it was held for the stockholders of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio ~-A. There 12941 may have been an understanding that it was held for a common ownership of the stockholders of Ohio, but I was not aware of any such agreement.

Q. You heard Mr. Rockefeller's testimony here, didn't you ~-A.

Mr. J. D. Rockefeller i

Q. Yes.-A. I don't know that I have it in mind.

Q. Well, did you know whether there was any such understanding at the time 1-A. I knew that there was a general understanding at that time that these properties were being taken with a view to common ownership, but there was no well-defined plan as to how that would be brought about, and as a matter of fact it was not brought about until the trust agreement of 1882.

Q. Was not that stock at that time, immediately after the organization of the Acme Oil Company of New York, held by those parties for the benefit of the stockholders of the Standard Oil of Ohio 1-A. It may have been. I couldn't say from memory whether there was any such understanding. I only knew them as the legal owners and representatives of the company.

Q. Then you were one of the owners, were you ~-A. I was origi-

nally, yes. '

Q. What did you do with your stock ~-A. I sold my stock, I think, in 1876.

Q. To whom ~-A. I am not sure as to whom; either to some of those parties or possibly to the Standard Oil Company of Ohio.

Q. Did you get stock in the Standard Oil Company of Ohio to pay for it ~-A. I took for it stock in the Standard Oil Company of Ohio.

12942 Q. Then, if you sold your stock in the Acme to the Standard

Oil Company of Ohio and got stock in the Standard Oil of Ohio, you knew it was in some way affiliated with that company, didn't you ~

Mr. MILBUBN. He didn't say he sold it to the Standard Oil Company.

WITNESS. I don't say that I sold it.

Q. Well, whom did you sell it to~-A. I may have sold it to one of the individuals. I have no distinct recollection as to whom it was sold.

Q. You testified in 1879 a bout the Acme as follows, did you: "Q.

How long has it been controlled by or affiliated with the Standard Oil Company ~-A. It is an independent organization. It is not controlled or affiliated with the Standard Oil Company at all." Did you testify to that ~-A. If the record is as you state; and I have no doubt but that my understanding of the matter at that time was as I have stated.

Q. Well, it was entirely independent, was it, of the Standard at that time ~-A. So far as legal control was concerned, I believe it to have been, if I so testified. I believed it then to be.

Digitized by Coogle

ARCHBOLD.

a345

Q. It was doing an independent business, wasn't it 1-A. It was up to that time, and, indeed, for some time after that, under my administration, doing business with a view to the extension of its own trade.

Q. Entirely independent of the Standard Oil Company 1-A. So far as any legal domination of the Standard Oil Company was concerned.

12943 Q. Well, so far as its business was concerned, wasn't it 1-A.

As far as I can recall it.

Q. Was it competing with the Standard Oil companies1-A. I imagine that there was, up to that period and for a further considerable period, very sharp rivalry.

Q. You testified that during those years it was a competitor of the Standard Oil Company, didn't you 1-A. If I did so testify, I so believed at that time.

Q. Let me refresh your recollection. Did you testify, in 1879, in the case of the Commonwealth against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Mr. Archbold 1-A. I believe I did.

Q. Suit had been brought by the Commonwealth to oust the Pennsylvania Railroad Company out of the State for paying rebates, hadn't it ?-A. I have forgotten what the basis of the suit was. It is very vague in my mind.

Q. You remember testifying, do you 1-A. I remember of being a witness in some such case, yes. I could not have testified positively as to what it was.

Q. You testified, did you not, to this: "Q. You spoke, sir, heretofore in your examination about competition and rivalry which the Acme Oil Company had to contend with-will you state, sir, with what parties they have had to contend with in competition, or with whom they have rivalry 1-A. There have been competitive interests at all times at different localities reaching the trade in different directions, with whom we contended. Q. That you have already stated, sir, but the question is with what parties 1-A. You want me to name them Y Q. Yes, sir.-A. Covering what period 1 Q. Well, sir, the

periods that you have at present in your mind. If you 12944 want any particular time I indicate since the 1st of May,

1878.-A. The concerns of Love & Company, Sod om & Tigg, Hoffman & Company," (and then named a lot more, among others these) "D. P. Reighart, notably; Elk; ns & Flack, William L. Elkins & Company at Philadelphia, Standard Oil Company at Cleveland and Pittsburg, Warden, Frew & Company at Philadelphia, Charles Pratt & Company at New York, and a number of others whose names I don't at the moment recall." Did you testify to that in 18791

Mr. RoSENTHAL. What was the question.

Mr. KELLOGG. Whether they were in competition with the Acme

Oil Company]

Mr. RoSENTHAL. Have you given the whole question 1 Mr. KELWGO. Yes.

Mr. RoSENTHAL. And the whole answer.

Digitized by Coogle

8346

ARCHBOLD.

Mr. KELLOGG. Yes.

A. I have no recollection of it. If I did I believed it to be true. Q. Well, were they in competition with the Acme Oil Company]

A. If I so testified, I believed it to be true, on the conditions as they then existed.

Q. And now you believe it to be true, don't you ¥-A. I believed it to be true at that time, as I then testified. I am not testifying now as to conditions that existed thirty years ago.

Q. You were yesterday, weren't you ?-A. No, I don't think so.

Q. I thought you went over a lot of these companies yesterday?A. I went over the records of companies.

12945 Q. Were those companies independent companies at that

time ?-A. They were independent in the sense of seeking business, certainly.

Q. And in the sense of competing with each other t=-A. And in the sense of competing for business; in the sense of rivalry for business.

Q. And Warden, Frew & Company, Charles Pratt & Company, and the Standard Oil, and the Acme were all competing with each other for business ?-A. Whatever I testified to at that time I did under advice and because I believed it at that time to be the exact fact.

An adjournment was here taken until the morning of Wednesday, December 2, 1908, at 10.30 o'clock.

12946 ROOM 508 CCSTOM-HouSE, NEW YORK CITY,

lV ednesday, December 2, 1908-10 .. 10 a. m.

The hearing was resumed before the special examiner, Hon. Franklin Ferriss, at the above time and place.

Present: On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Frank B. Kellogg, Mr. Charles B. Morrison, Mr .• J. Harwood Graves. On behalf of the defendants, Mr. John G. Milburn, Mr. Moritz Rosenthal, Mr. John S. Miller, Mr. F. L. Crawford, Mr. Walter F. Taylor, Mr. 'V. Cleveland Runyon.

Mr .• TOIIN D. Ancrrnor,n, recalled, and his cross-examination re-

sumed, as follows: .

By Mr. KELLOGG:

Q. Mr. Archbold, can you give us the percentage of business which the Standard interests were doing in this country about the year 1879 when this first trust agreement was made? I mean those interests, the stock interests of which were centered in that trust agreement of 1879?-A. Can I give it?

Q. Yes.-A. I will endeavor to do so. I don't know whether I have the data--

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Yon mav assume that what Mr. Archbold testified to in 1879-namely, that it" was about 75 per cent at that time, was correct.

Digitized by Coogle