Page:The History of the Standard Oil Company Vol 2.djvu/166

 was carried on under assumed names! Whenever the subject of the relations between the various companies came up in a lawsuit or an investigation, a candid and straightforward answer was always avoided by both Mr. Rockefeller and the men known to be associated with him in some way. For instance, in 1879, when H. H. Rogers was before the Hepburn Committee, an effort was made to find out what relation the firm of Charles Pratt and Company, of which he was a member, sustained to the Standard Oil Company. Mr. Rogers's testimony was a masterpiece of good-natured evasion, and all that the examiners could get, though they returned again and again to the inquiry, was that Charles Pratt and Company worked "in harmony" with the Standard Oil Company.

When ex-Governor Nash of Ohio was investigating the relations of the Cleveland and Marietta Railroad and the National Transit Company, try his best he could not find out anything definite. In his report Mr. Nash said: "I have purposely referred to the parties who entered into this arrangement with Receiver Pease and his freight agent, J. E. Terry, as the parties represented by O'Day and Scheide, for the reason that I have not been able to ascertain who or what the parties are." That they were officers of the National Transit Company he had evidence, but what relation had the National Transit Company to the Standard Oil Company? Was it a part of it? Mr. Nash was unable to find from Mr. O'Day, closely as he might question him.

In the Buffalo case, when John D. Rockefeller was on the stand, he was put through a questioning in regard to the relations of the persons concerned in the suit to the Standard Oil Trust, whose existence he admitted. Mr. Rockefeller answered all the questions his lawyers would allow, but at the end the