Q. Of London, England ? A. I do not.
Q. You know nothing about it ? A. I do not.
Q. Is it owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by any company of the Standard Oil combination 2 A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. You would be apt to know it, wouldn't you, if it was ? A. I think I would.
Q. Do you know the firm of Budd, Johnson and Jecks, Lon don, solicitors ? A. I don't know them.
Q. Did you ever hear of them ? A. I may have heard of them in connection with this inquiry.
Q. Do you know Mr. Maxwell ? A. I do not.
Q. Connected with the firm. Mr. Maxwell or Mr. Herbert Johnson 2 A. I do not know either of them.
Q. Did you ever hear of them 2 A. I may, in connection with this firm. I don't even recall the names now.
Mr. Kellogg, counsel for the United States Government, pointed out that the New York books of the Anglo-American Oil Company Ltd., of London, showed that the Company between 1899 and 1906 loaned over £540,000 to Mr. James McDonald, who was then its managing director, and he suggested that it was to provide the money to enable the General Industrials Development Syndicate to buy the Manhattan and yet conceal that the Standard were the purchasers. Mr. Archbold was in his best non mi ricordo vein. Although he was a director of the Anglo-American Oil Company up to 1907 he could not tell for what purpose that large sum of money was lent to Mr. McDonald by the Company. Neither the auditor nor the comptroller of the Standard Oil Company in New York could tell why their London branch did this, and Mr. Archbold did not even know whether the loan had been repaid ! He was still more pointedly questioned about the matter :— Q. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Archbold, that the Standard Oil Com pany, or some of its companies, indirectly owns the Indus trials Development Syndicate, Limited, and organised it 2 A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. You keep pretty close track o companies starting business in competition with you in this country, don't you 2 A. We do.
Q. You seem to be able to produce a list here of every concern engaged in the oil business in the country, didn't you 2 A. As nearly as we can keep track of it ; yes.
Q. Is this General Industrials Development Syndicate, Limited, engaged in the oil business anywhere else 2 A. I do not know.
Q. You never investigated it 2 A. I never heard of their being in any place else. They may. I never have heard of it.
Q. And yet it bought the Manhattan Company and then caused the Manhattan to sell you the refineries, the producing wells, the cars, and continued doing business with you, and you never looked into the Development Company. . . . You never investigated to find out who the English company was ? A. No, not beyond that.
The last question of counsel is a sufficient com mentary in itself on Mr. Archbold's pretended ignorance of the General Industrials Develop ment Syndicate, but further light will be thrown presently upon the relations of this London com pany with the Standard group. In the mean time, it will be convenient to consider, at the same time, the second of these English companies, the London Commercial Trading and Investment Company. Evidence was given in the Missouri prosecution by Mr. H. Bayne, the son of a well known New York banker, that all the stock of the Security Oil Company of Texas, another pro fessedly independent concern, had been ac quired by this London company. Texas has a very rigid anti-Trust law, and therefore there was an additional reason for caution in allowing the real purchasers to become known. Mr. Archbold was as discreet as ever. Mr. Kellogg put it to him that cheques drawn by the Anglo American Oil Company to the order of the National Provincial Bank of England in London were by that bank turned over to the Bank of England, and that cheques were then drawn on that bank to solicitors to pay for the Security Oil Company's stock. Now, although Mr. Arch bold had been for many years a director of the Anglo-American Oil Company, he could neither confirm nor deny this remarkable story. He had never heard of such a transaction, and when asked whether the Standard directly or indirectly owned or controlled the London Commercial Trading Company he could only reply, " Not to my knowledge." It is time, in considering this painful case of " loss of memory," to turn to the records of these two companies in the Registry of Joint Stock Companies at Somerset House. They present singular features of resemblance ; in fact, save for the disparity in age, they might be twins. Both companies have as solicitors and large original shareholders the members of the firm of Budd, Johnson and Jecks, of 24, Austin Friars, E.C., whose names Mr. Archbold was unable to recall. Both com panies have the same offices-27, Walbrook ; the same secretary—Mr. J. Morgan Richards Francis ; and the same auditor. Both com panies have adopted the idea of issuing share warrants to bearer for the whole of their capital, by which device they avoid returning any subsequent list of shareholders to Somer set House. Both companies hit upon the idea of having but one director, and both were fortunate enough to select for that onerous task the same gentleman—Mr. Horace Maxwell Johnson, barrister-at-law, of Hickwells, Chailey, Sussex. But these strange coincidences do not end here.