he financiers did when they read them over the signature of
the known agent and mouthpiece for Amalgamated and "Standard Oil,"
myself. I showed that I believed them by putting my signature to them. I
was and am personally responsible for the truth of these statements, but
more so are H. H. Rogers, William G. Rockefeller, the National City
Bank, and the Amalgamated Company. Even if it had not been a matter of
public knowledge that I was the agent of the City Bank and the
Amalgamated Company and the "Standard Oil" party; if it had not been a
fact, as it was, that I inserted these three advertisements by agreement
with those who were responsible for them and who were doing business
directly with the public; if it had not been a fact that these people
through me paid for these advertisements, thereby directly showing I was
their authorized agent; if I had not taken the precaution to see that
such payment was made by a check signed by William G. Rockefeller,
treasurer of the Amalgamated Company, and yet made to the order of the
newspaper people and handed by me to them, thereby clinching my agency,
nevertheless the advertisement itself would have made it clear that I
was the full and authorized agent, or it would have been stopped there
and then and the bank and the company would have refused to proceed
further, for I say:

"I advise all intending subscribers to send their
subscriptions personally or through their banking or
brokerage house direct to the National City Bank of New
York. While my firm will, for the convenience of its
clients, forward subscriptions, I would have it understood
that such subscribers will receive the same treatment if
they send their applications direct.

"My firm will also furnish subscription blanks to those who,
through lack of time or otherwise, cannot secure them
elsewhere."

I think I have made clear so far the conditions under which these vital
statements were put forward and have lodged the legal responsibility for
them where it belongs. The National City Bank is plainly liable for
violation of the published stipulations under which subscriptions were
allotted, and it is common knowledge that the stock was allotted one
share in five subscribed for, while the original list of subscriptions
shows that the total allotment was less than twenty-seven millions and
the full subscription less than double the amount to be allotted.

It is commo