It was on May 2, i886, that the trial began. The array of wealth and legal learning in the Buffalo court-room during the fourteen days' case set not only the town, but the country agape. There were not only the Standard men indicted for conspiracy—H. H. Rogers, J. D. Archbold, Ambrose Mc Gregor—but Mr. Rockefeller himself was there, quiet, steady, watchful. The hostile said the accused and their counsel were disdainful of the proceedings—nobody charged Mr. Rockefeller with disdain. With him were other strong men of the concern, William Rockefeller, Daniel O'Day, J. P. Dudley. There was a great array of legal learning—five emi nent lawyers—Wilson S. Bissell, a former law partner of ex President Cleveland ; W. F. Cogswell, of Rochester, counted then one of the ablest lawyers of the state ; Theodore Bacon and F. G. Outerbridge, both of Rochester ; Daniel Lockwood, famous in politics as well as law ; and, of course, S. C. T. Dodd. This for the accused. For the people was the district attorney of Erie County, George T. Quinby, with one assist ant. For fourteen days witnesses were examined, and the above story was &ragged from them by dint of questioning and cross questioning. On May lc) the testimony for the prosecution ended, and the "people rested." The Standard lawyers imme diately applied for the acquittal of Mr. Rogers, Mr. Arch bold and Mr. McGregor, on the ground that no fact or cir cumstance had been proved that connected them in the slightest degree with the charge of conspiracy to lure Miller away or to destroy the Buffalo Works. The district-attorney com bated the proposition vigorously. These gentlemen, he con tended, owned three-fourths of the Vacuum Works ; they were always present at directors' meetings ; it was a fair presump tion that they knew what was done to persuade Miller to leave the Buffalo Works ; they must have known the moneys paid him while he was doing little work. Mr. Rogers had certainly threatened Matthews that he would carry up the patent suits until the Buffalo Works got enough of it. Judge Haight, how ever, advised the jury to acquit Mr. Rogers, Mr. Archbold and Mr. McGregor. "The indictment charges a conspiracy," the judge said. "It also charges certain overt acts. One of the acts charged in the indictment is the enticing away from the Buffalo company of a servant. Another of the acts alleged is an attempt to blow up or destroy the Buffalo Works, and another act that of bringing false suits against the corpo ration. So far as the agreement or combination to entice away a servant from the Buffalo company is concerned, I have not been able to recall any evidence which shows that either of these three defendants ever knew of it, ever heard of it, or ever took any part in it at all. So far as the charge of an attempt to blow up the Buffalo Works is concerned, I have been unable to recall any evidence that has been given in which either of these three defendants ever knew of it, ever heard of it, ever advised it, or ever took any part in it whatever. The only thing about which I have had any doubt was in reference to the maintaining of actions which have been brought upon patent rights which were formerly owned by the Everests, and by the Everests transferred to the Vacuum Oil Company, and it appears that two suits were brought upon patents, and that there was another suit, a third one, in reference to a trade-mark. It appears from the evidence that upon one occasion Mr. Matthews went to New York and had a talk with Mr. Rogers, and that his conversation has already been discussed and related in your hearing. The query in my mind was as to whether or not the inference could not be drawn, from this conversation, that Rogers did know of the bringing of these actions, acquiesced in their being brought, and in that way became a party to them ; but, even conceding that the actions were brought with his knowledge and consent, I am inclined still to think that the evidence is hardly sufficient to warrant his conviction, for the reason that it does not appear that the actions were brought without proba ble cause ; in other words, the bringing of an action and being defeated in the action is not of itself sufficient to authorise a jury to say that it was a false action. That standing alone is not sufficient to authorise a jury to say that it is a false action, but there must be shown in addition to that that there was a want of probable cause ; in other words, that the party bring ing the action knew and understood beforehand that he had no good cause of action. . . . I am inclined to the opinion that the evidence would not warrant his conviction upon that ground." The acquittal of the three Standard gentlemen was followed by an application for the acquittal of the Everests, but the case with them was different. It had been proved conclusively that they threatened at the start to ruin the new concern, and that they had counselled Miller "to arrange the machinery so it would bust up or smash up"; there was a strong presump tion that Miller, acting on this advice, had arranged for the explosion of June i5, though, as he claimed, he meant only to "give them a scare." The judge denied the application in their case, therefore, and the trial went on. The whole force of the defence was now thrown to proving that Matthews had gone into the Buffalo Lubricating Company merely to sell out. His offer to Mr. Brewster in 1882, his talk of making the Standard settle, were rehearsed. Two witnesses were pro duced also who told of seeking Matthews in 1885, after the criminal suit was brought, and of offering, on the ground that they knew the Standard defendants, to attempt to settle the affair. Matthews had told these men that if the Standard would give him $25o,000 for his refinery, he would withdraw the civil suit, but that he could not touch the criminal suit, as it was in the hands of the district-attorney. The jury was not greatly influenced by the evidence produced to show that Matthews was a blackmailer. Evidently they concluded that, granting that the Everests had cause of complaint against the men for using their processes—they certainly had no just cause in the fact of the three men setting up in business for themselves— granting that the enterprise was started for blackmailing pur poses—and there was no proof offered that it was—the Everests should have taken their case into the courts—not plotted the destruction of the refinery by any such underhand methods as they employed. Whatever the jury's process of reasoning, how
ever, it is certain that on May 16 they brought in a verdict of "guilty as charged by the indictment." The most strenuous efforts were made to set the verdict aside. The judge granted a stay, and an attempt to get a new trial was made, but unsuccessfully. The sentence was stayed until May, i888. The statute provided a penalty of one year's imprisonment or $250 fine, or both. Efforts were at once made to soften the sentence. A petition signed by over forty "lead ing citizens" of Rochester, New York, the home of the Ever ests, was sent to Judge Haight, praying him, on account of the "untarnished fidelity and integrity" of the convicted men, to make the penalty as light as the court was authorised by law to fix. Six of the jurors were induced by Standard agents to sign a paper claiming that in their belief the jury in render ing its verdict of guilty did not mean to pronounce the Everests guilty of an attempt to blow up or burn the works of the Buffalo company, but guilty only of enticing Miller away, and they recommended that the sentence, therefore, be a fine and not imprisonment. District-Attorney Quinby offered to prove on a hearing for a new trial that the Standard's representatives used money in getting these affidavits. The result was that the two Everests were each fined $25o. This sentence was made light, the judge explained, because of the civil suits brought to recover damages for the very same acts—a person could not be punished twice for the same offence.
The first civil suit referred to above resulted in an award by the jury of $2o,000 to Matthews. The second civil suit was for $25o,000, but before it was tried Matthews's business had become so involved by all this trouble that in January, i888, it was put into the hands of a receiver. The defendants finally offered to settle the civil suits for $85,000. The judge ordered the receiver to acept the offer, on the ground that the Everests had already been declared guilty of criminal conspiracy and had been fined, and that a person could not be punished twice for the same offence! It was not until June, 1889, that the receiver filed his account of the settlement of the affairs of the Buffalo Works. Of the $85,000 paid by the Standard, Matthews seems not to have gotten a cent. The entire sum went to settle the debts of the concern and pay the lawyers. The leading claimants among the lawyers were Thomas Corlett, Edward W. Hatch and Adelbert Moot, all of Buffalo. Their claims aggregated nearly $35,000. The receiver thought these fees exorbitant, and a referee was appointed by the court to take the testimony of the claimant as to their services. The testimony was volumi nous, and the upshot was that the referee cut these claims to about $22,000. The final account filed by the receiver shows that the three gentlemen finally were paid about $15,000.
The large claims made by the lawyers and certain circum stances of the settlement have led the Standard, in later years, to advance a counter charge of conspiracy of much more seri ous nature than that which they depended on in the trial. This new charge makes Matthews's counsel his fellow con spirators, and alleges that at least two of them used important official positions to influence the verdict. In the present year (1904) the Standard's official organ, the Oil City Derrick, published a supplement containing the evidence on which this counter charge is based, and editorially accused the writer of bias in not using this material in the story of the Buffalo case which was published practically as it stands here in McClure's Magazine for March, 1904. It is true, as the Derrick claims, that through the courtesy of the Standard Oil Company this material was placed in the writer's hands be fore the article was published. It was not used because it was not thought it established the charge.
The points brought out in the evidence published by the Derrick which are held by the Standard to establish the charge of a conspiracy between Matthews and his counsel are the fol lowing: In the first place, they declare it a conspiracy because Corlett, who was called to the bench in January, 1884, and Hatch, who was called to the bench in January, 1886, were both in consultation with their successors after they became judges. That this is true there is no doubt whatever. Mr. Moot in his full statement of his services made to the referee refers again and again to consultations with Corlett and Hatch after they had given up the case. Hatch speaks freely in his state ment to the referee of counselling with Quinby and Moot.* If there was an impropriety in what he did, he certainly made no effort to conceal it, nor did the referee, the court, or the receiver, to whom this statement was submitted, raise any question of impropriety. The counsel which both Judge Corlett and Judge Hatch gave Quinby and Moot they owed Matthews. They had been his counsel for years. They were obliged to give up his cases because of their election to the bench. They were debarred by their relation to the case, of course, from hearing it, but there was no reason why their knowledge and experience should not be drawn upon to a reasonable degree by the new attorneys. Certainly this is a universal practice in law courts. It is difficult to see how it could be otherwise. If either judge had used his posi tion to influence his fellow judge who heard the case there would be a just criticism, but no such intimation has ever been made, to the writer's knowledge.