ous nature than that which they depended on in the trial. This new charge makes Matthews's counsel his fellow conspirators, 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 before 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 following: 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 statement to the referee of counselling with Quinby and Moot.[1] 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
- ↑ The Derrick published in a four-page supplement to the issue of April 23, 1904, the full text of both statements under the title "More of Tarbell's Tergiversations."
[ 107 ]
