In a talk with Miller a little while after this, C. M. Everest said to him: “You go back to Buffalo and construct the pipes so that they cannot make a good oil, and then, I think, if you would give them a little scare. You might scare them a little, they not knowing anything about the business, and you know how to do it.” On account of Miller’s neglect, the first still in the new refinery was not ready to be fired until June 15—it was an ordinary still, as was the second one built—the third only was built for the Vacuum process. As soon as the still was ready it was filled with some 175 barrels of crude oil and a very hot fire—“inordinary hot” was the droll description of the fireman—built under it. Miller, who superintended the operations, swore at the fireman once or twice because the fire was not hot enough, and then disappeared. While he was gone the brickwork around the still began to crack. The safety valve finally blew off, and a yellow gas or vapour escaped in such quantities that the superintendent of a neighbouring refinery came out and warned the fireman that he was endangering property. Miller was hunted up. He had the safety valve readjusted—it was thought by certain witnesses that he had it too heavily weighted—and ordered the fires to be rebuilt, hot as before. He again disappeared. In his absence the safety valve again blew off. The run of oil was found to be a failure. It was not a pleasant augury, but oil refiners are more or less hardened to explosions and no one seems to have thought much of the accident. Nobody was injured; nothing was burned, nothing but 175 barrels of oil spoiled; that, in an oil refinery, is getting off easy.
On the 23d of June Miller made the transfer of property advised by the Everests, talked over things with Truesdale, and a week later left the Buffalo Works suddenly on receipt of a telegram, and joined H. B. Everest at the Union Square Hotel in New York. Here Everest advised him to telegraph his wife to move at once to Rochester lest Matthews attach their household goods, and then proposed the two go to Boston. The only event of interest at the Union Square Hotel was an entirely casual meeting with H. H. Rogers, one of the directors of the Vacuum Oil Company. Mr. Rogers seems to have had no conversation with Miller other than to remark, in leaving, that he would see him the next day if he did not go to Boston. The men did, however, go to Boston, where they registered as “H. B. Everest and friend,” and where several times, at least, Everest introduced Miller under an assumed name. They junketed about for some days on what Everest tried, with indifferent success, to persuade Miller was a pleasure excursion! While they were amusing themselves, Everest hired Miller at $1,500 a year to “do any fair job we put him at, either at Rochester or some other place.” The job turned out to be a rambling one—a few weeks of semi-idleness in Boston—then nothing until September, when he undertook to supervise the drilling of a salt well in Leroy, New York. This lasted until February, 1882; then nothing until May, when, on the advice of H. B. Everest, who had returned to California, Miller went there: “Pack up, sell your property there and come on. Come right to my house and I will help you to get a place and show you how to raise fruit and be an independent man.” Miller went, the Vacuum Oil Company paying his expenses. On his arrival he was put to work in a cannery. The Everests explained that they made this arrangement because they thought it would put Miller where he could not be brought back to trouble them any more.
In the meantime things were going badly with the Buffalo Lubricating Works. Miller’s loss was a severe one. The men were all novices in making oil, save Wilson, and he was on the road, and they seem to have been unable to find a competent manager. The Everests soon succeeded, too, in getting Wilson out of the new firm by bringing a suit against him for damaging its business by unlawfully leaving it. The suit was withdrawn and the costs paid, when Wilson consented, in December, 1881, to leave the Buffalo Works. Wilson’s loss was particularly serious, as he was a salesman of experience.
The suits for infringing the Vacuum patents and processes, which Everest at the start had warned Matthews would be brought, were begun in September, 1881—four separate suits within a year. Matthews, as has been said, had convinced himself that the patents were not valid, and some time in the spring of 1882 he saw H. H. Rogers in New York concerning the suits. “I told him I had come in to talk with him about the patent litigation, or suits that were begun by the Vacuum Oil Company against my company,” Matthews said in his testimony. “‘Well,’ he said, ‘well, what about it?’—something like that. I told him that the product patent, that I well knew, was without merit, and that he knew it was without merit, and I could not see what object or good they could get out of it by bringing suit on that patent. And also the steam patent I considered was without value, and that he knew it was without value. He said that if one court did not sustain the patents they would carry along up until we got enough of it—that was the substance of that talk.”
Matthews was evidently discouraged by the result of his talk with Mr. Rogers, for, meeting Benjamin Brewster, of the Standard Oil Company, he offered to sell the Buffalo Lubricating Works for $100,000. The offer was refused, and the suits against which Mr. Matthews protested were pushed. On the 21st of February, 1882, the Vacuum Oil Company filed a complaint in the United States Circuit Court of the Northern District of New York, asking that the Buffalo company be prevented from manufacturing lubricating oils, on the ground that the Vacuum Oil Company had a patent covering the process of manufacturing lubricating oils. The action was regarded as unfounded by the court, and was dismissed on July 16, 1884, “the ground being that the letters sued on in this cause are void.” April 25, 1882, another action was commenced by the Vacuum Oil Company against the Buffalo company to obtain an injunction and an accounting for damages upon the ground that the Buffalo company was using an apparatus covered by a patent belonging to the Vacuum Oil Company, but this action also was dismissed March 17, 1885, upon the ground that the letters patent sued upon were “null and void.” On February 23, 1883, the Vacuum Oil Company commenced still another action against the Buffalo company asking for an injunction to prevent the Buffalo company from using a label advertising “The Acme Harness Oil made by the Vacuum Process,” because the Vacuum Company had long used a somewhat similar label advertising “The Vacuum Harness Oil manufactured by Vacuum Oil Company,” but the judge in the case decided that the Vacuum Company had no more right to use labels than the Buffalo company. This decision has since been affirmed by the General Term of the Supreme Court. Still another action was brought against the Buffalo company April 25, 1882, for infringing a patent on a steam process, also a patent upon a fire test. This action resulted in a decree sustaining the fire-test patent, but declaring the steam patent void. The case was then referred to James Breck Perkins, of the Rochester bar, to decide the amount which the Buffalo company had infringed on this patent. Mr. Perkins on a number of different occasions took a large amount of proof there in behalf of the Vacuum Company upon which its counsel claimed that it was entitled to $12,000 damages upon the accounting. The Buffalo company submitted no proof in contradiction, but insisted that the whole proof showed nothing more than a purely technical infringement of the patent, and this view was sustained by Mr. Perkins in his report which awarded six cents damages against the Buffalo company.
The disappearance of Miller, the man on whom the firm had depended for superintending building and refining, the withdrawal of Wilson, with whom the enterprise had originated and on which it had staked its hopes of finding a ready market, and the series of suits for infringement of patents, suits which cost Matthews thousands of dollars as well as much embarrassment and delay, were troubles brought on him, so he believed, as the result of a deliberate attempt on the part of the Vacuum Oil Company to make good C. M. Everest’s threat to do all in his power to ruin the Buffalo Lubricating Works, and, in the spring of 1883, he brought a civil suit against the Everests for $100,000. While Matthews was working up his case he learned that Miller had returned from California, that he had left the Everests because he claimed they had “not treated him right,” and that he was idle in Rochester. Miller seems to have left California chiefly because he had gotten it into his head that the information he had about the measures the Vacuum had taken to prevent the Buffalo Works carrying on their business was valuable. H. B. Everest testified that Miller once said to him after he was settled in California: “Mr. Everest, you have always been kind to me, and I shall do nothing to injure you, but I am going to bust the Standard.” I said: “Al, how will you go to work to do that?” “More ways than one,” he said; “they can’t afford to let me loose,” he said. “Sha’n’t be bought off, either, unless I get something for it. It will cost them more than twenty-five or fifty thousand dollars before they get through with me.” I said: “Al, I think you can make more money raising fruit in California than you can fighting the Standard.” This conversation was held immediately after the Vacuum had paid Miller $1,000, in addition to the salary of $1,500 they gave him, and for no apparent purpose except to keep him quiet.
When Matthews learned of Miller’s return he asked him to come to Buffalo, and evidently got from him then, for the first time, the story of the pressure the Everests had brought to bear on him to leave the Buffalo Lubricating Works, the “fixing” of the still at their advice so that something would “smash,” the transfer of his property, his two years of semi-idleness on $1,500 a year and a bonus of $1,000, paid for a reason which can only be surmised, and his final breaking in California, because, as he claimed, he saw no settled employment in view and no prospect of the Everests doing more for him than they were, and, as they claimed, because he believed he could get a big sum from the Standard to keep silent. To all of this Miller made deposition in July, 1884.
The first civil suit was brought to trial early in March, 1885, and it resulted in the jury giving a verdict of $20,000 to Matthews for damages. The court set the sum aside, claiming that they had proved only $4,000 in damages and that he would not sustain an award of punitive damages. Matthews’s counsel now obtained a stay of proceedings and finally a new trial. Now about this time Matthews secured evidence which emboldened him to give his suit a much wider range than he had at first intended. This was the testimony of the lawyer Truesdale, quoted above, that in his office Everest had suggested that Miller “arrange the machinery so that it would bust up or smash up.” The explosion of June 15 was immediately construed as the result of this counsel. On the strength of this evidence Matthews instituted a second civil suit for damages of $250,000 caused by conspiracy to blow up the works of the Buffalo company, to entice away its employees, to bring unfounded suits against it, and to slander the company’s product, and he added to the original defendants the three other directors of the Vacuum Works—H. H. Rogers, J. D. Archbold and Ambrose McGregor—and the Standard Oil Company of New York, the Acme Oil Company of New York and the Vacuum Oil Company. Matthews seems to have argued that, as Rogers, Archbold and McGregor were directors with the Everests in the Vacuum Oil Company, they had probably been consulted by the Everests concerning Miller, and could be included in the conspiracy, and, as the Vacuum, Standard Oil Company and Acme Oil Company were all concerns in the Standard Oil Trust, they, too, could be included. He also went before the Grand Jury of Erie County in opposition to the advice of his counsel and secured there an indictment of H. H. Rogers, J. D. Archbold, Ambrose McGregor and the two Everests for criminal conspiracy. The defendants succeeded in getting the indictment set aside the first time, but Matthews represented the case, and a second indictment was found of the same persons. It should be noted that Mr. McGregor was indicted only because he was a director of the Vacuum Works, his name not being mentioned in the evidence presented to the Grand Jury.
An indictment for conspiracy of three men of such prominence as Mr. Rogers, Mr. Archbold and Mr. McGregor riveted the attention of the whole country on the coming trial. It was apparent from the first that the Standard meant to put up a big fight to have the indictment quashed. They had, indeed, set a strong machinery at work immediately to get evidence on which to bring a counter charge of conspiracy; that is, that Matthews’s intention in starting the Buffalo Lubricating Works was never to do business, but to force the Standard to buy him out at a big price. They at once set a detective to work on the case, one item of his instructions reading: “We have reason to believe that the suit is brought for the purpose of forcing the Standard to purchase the works of the Buffalo Lubricating Company, and Matthews has made certain statements to that effect; would like reports of any statements or admissions by him in relation to his objects in these suits.” Under the direction of this detective, a man employed in Matthews’s works for some months made daily reports of what he saw and heard there, copies of which were forwarded to the Standard office in New York. A detective was also put on Miller’s track. Miller was now employed in a refinery in Corry, Pennsylvania, and here he was for a long time under espionage. The chief expression obtained from him was by luring him into a saloon one Sunday afternoon and getting him half drunk. While in this condition, the saloon-keeper testified, he said the Buffalo suit was a —— humbug, but there was money in it and that they (he and the persons who were drinking with him) might as well make it as anybody.
It was on May 2, 1886, 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 McGregor—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 eminent 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 assistant. For fourteen days witnesses were examined, and the above story was dragged from them by dint of questioning and cross-questioning. On May 10 the testimony for the prosecution ended, and the “people rested.” The Standard lawyers immediately applied for the acquittal of Mr. Rogers, Mr. Archbold and Mr. McGregor, on the ground that no fact or circumstance 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 combated the proposition vigorously. These gentlemen, he contended, owned three-fourths of the Vacuum Works; they were always present at directors’ meetings; it was a fair presumption 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, however, 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 corporation. 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 probable 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 bringing 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.”