Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-06-14
THAT RECEVERSHIP.
Proceedings Before the Investi-
eating Committee.
WHITAKER CROSS-EXAMINED.
Characterized by Keen Thrusts of the
Counsel and Skillful Parrying of the
Witness-Charles Bonner
the Second Witness.
WHITAKER CROSS-EXAMI NED.
Special to the Gazette.


GALVESTON, Tex, June 13.-The legisla,
tive committee investigating the receiver
ship of the International and Great North
ern railway, resumed its inquiry at 10 a. m.
The cross-eXamination of H. NJ Whit
! taker, who was on the stand at the hour of
| adjournment yesterday, was re-
sumed by Mr.. Duncan The examina-
ton opened by interrogating the wit
ness as to what part his firm
took in the suits brought to test the vail
dity of the Bonner and Eddy receivership
at Palestine. He said suits were filed at
Palestine against the International and
Great Northern railroad in which it was
alleged that the district court of Smith
county had no jurisdiction and that the
suits were fraudulent; that he
appeared in these suits as counsel
for the International and Great Northern
railway and to protect the receivership of
the road as lodged in Bonner and Eddy by
the Smith county district court; that Judge
Wilson, before the suits We're brought, de-
cided that the district court of Smith
county had no jurisdiction and appointed
John A. Hearne receiver. Suit Immediately
therefore was brought against Bonner and
Eddy as receivers for recovery of the In
ternational and Great Northern property,
but the case was carried to the supreme
court where Judge Wilson'S decision was
reversed, thus upholding Bonner and Eddy.
The witness paid his fair and felt justified
in charging $1,000 for their services.
Mr.. Duncan asked if the now STYLED
iniquities in the way of salaries drawn by
the general solicitor and the general dttor-
neyS were not known at the time.
This question the witness could not an
sweu. The witness stated that all of his
testimony on record as to the agreement
with Judge McCord was from hearsay. The
witness momory seemed poor on points
hon f,or for Of - Il "a
been based on rumors and hearsay. The
witness gave his reason for asking Col
Bonner to accept the receivership, as that
he had heard that Finlay and Campbell
were to be appointed, and he thought Bon
ner could be depended upon.
1t leaked out that Col. Bonner was a
relative, both OF the witness and his part
ner.
The witness admitted that he did nothing
in the receivership matter until he heard
from New York (Jay Could that there was
an agreement between Gould and the Mis-
souri, Kansas anG Texas people by
which the chief and one or two of the
board should resign, and that Messrs.
Eddy and Cross should take their places.
Col. Eddy was to be elected president.
That agreement was carried out, and part
of the agreement was that Gould should
get Judgment for 100000. The witness
stated that he had been d candidate for
county judge against Judge McCord and
was defeated.
The cross-examination extended over
three hours and was of the most searching
character, and the keen thrusts of the
counsel and the skilful parrying of the wit
ness caused much merriment at times.
After replying to a few questions of
minor Importance propounded by Judge
Clark, the witness was dismissed. He,
however arose and asked in self justifica-
ton to introduce the letter of Judge Gerald
and his reply thereto SO that they might
become of record in this case.
Col Duncan Stoutly and vigorously COM
batted the introduction of the letters at this
juncture. The witness had ample oppor-
funity to justify himself while on the wit
ness stand. without seeking by this manner
to go behind the resolution and introduce
letters that were made OF hearsays and ru-
mors, and were not founded on facts.
Col Finley took the same view, while
Col. Alexander had different view.
The letters were finally allowed by the
counsel to go to the committee unread, and
they at some subsequent time could decide
if the letters were germane TO the matter
under investigation.
Mr. Charles L. Bonner, a member of the
firm of Whitaker & Bonner, gave the same
version of the case of Jay Gould VS. the In
ternational and Great Northern as his part
ner did, and his testimony as far as ad-
duced was largely corroborative of the for
mer witness. He told how he went to
Austin to see Acknowledgement Hogg
and the conversation that passed between
the encouragement and himself. He gave
testimony as to the court proceedings relaSl
tive to the appointment of the receivers,
Master in Chancery Mr.. Campbell's opposi-
ton to an assistant master in chancery, and
his threat TO resign if one was appointed.
The hour of adjournment having arrived,
further examination of Mr. Bonner was