Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-06-13
TAKING OF ORAL TESTIMONY.
The Writer of the Letter to Judge Gerald From
Which the Inquiry Originated.
W. II. Whitaker Tells What He Knows
of the Receivership-How Gould's
Demands Were Pressed-Camp-
bells Compensation.
Special to the Gazette.

parts of the records on points which he
believed were essential 10 the case and the
matter under Investigation. He thought II
proper the committee should be Ill posses
sion OF all the pleadings and records OF the
courts TO arrive at 4 proper understanding
of the legislative requirement. He would
not read the records unless the committee
| requested it, but would simply refer TO the
page and date, and give the substance if
necessary. He supposed there would be no
! objection
Judge Clarke objected to breaking into
his testimony in that way. The committee at
the start had decided how the evidence was
to be introduced. 1t devolved upon them
| as the representatives of the Farmers loan
ana trust company the duty OF
! opening the case, and he objected 10 the
| introducing of ties ,imony until they were
through with their side of the case, then the
| opposing counsel could present 1t II they
| desired. Yesterday, he said. it was
decided that they should first present
their ease, and he objected to
a reversal of that decision. The committee
! could not connect the testimony if broken
into in the manner proposed. and 1t was no
injustice to the other side because they
would be allowed all the time they wanted
| to present their case.
Mr.. Duncan in reply called the attention
of the committee to the terms used by
! Judge Clark He had previously stated
that he had no case. Judge Clark
| was merely representing the Farmers
| loan and trust company. and had
submitted the pleadings and records OF
| the courts, but rs a part of the pleadings
and records had been omitted, his side
desired to submit the parts omitted and put
them into record. Judge Clark had said
| that he had no testimony.
| Judge Clarke said ''Oh. yes we have"
MIR. Duncan said he was not prosecut-
ing and had no more testimony than they
| had, aud submitted that the proper way
| was for the committee 10 be in possession
| of all the pleadings before going into the
| facts of the case.
! The committee held private cOnsuta-
| ton and decided to adhere to the decision
| of the previous day and proceed with the
| oral testimony.
| MIR w n. Whitaker was the first witness
| called, and testified substantially as fol-
| lows He had been a lawyer in Tyler,
| Smith county. for nearly eighteen
| years. in connection with Charles
aker & Bonham. In 1855 they We're
representatives of the Texas and Pacific
| railway III that and neighboring. counties.
| They afterwards withdrew, Mr.. Burnet
succeeding them In January. 1889, he re
ceived a telegram from Baker. Bolts &
Baker, attorneys Tor the Missouri "a
| cific railway, requesting one of the
| firm TO go to Henderson, Rusk
county. and represent that company.
| On February 4, 1889, suit was pleaded in
| the district court of Smith county by Jay
| Gould VS.. the International and Great
| Northern, in which the witness appeared
| for the plaintiff Mr.. Merriam, assistant
solicitor of the Missouri Pacific railway,
| was in Tyler at that time and had in his
! possession power of attorney executed by
| the board of directors Of the international
and Great Northern railway, authorizing
| him to confess Judgment. The resolution
! giving him that authority was passed by
| the board OF directors between the 4th and
9TH of the month. When the court was
| just adjourning the witness called the at
| fention of the court to the
| case, saying it could be settled
in short time. The court room
at that time was nearly empty, as
the sheriff mad adjourned court. MIR. Chill
ton. however, was in the room and OBJ
| iected to cOnfessing judgment Intimations
were made at that time that Goulds ac-
tons were fraudulent The power OF
attorney was never filed and judgment
was not obtained. Court adjourned until
Friday. He had heard rumor-
Mr. Finley objected 10 the witness stat
ing about the runlor. Rumors We're lille
gitlmate No tribunal that had the char
acter of a man at stake would receive such
evidence. Judge McCord had nothing to do
with rumors. They We're there TO NEE
evidence, not rumorS.
Judge Alexander said the committee had
decided that the evidence be taken in a lib
eral manner without technicalities of law.
He did not understand that Judge McCord
was affected more particularly than any
other person. If he understood the case,
no person in particular was under lnveSti-
cation until the committee had decided on
the evidence taken.
Mr. Duncan asked if the committee were
L. !.
the form of law.
Judge McCord made a strong speech
against the introduction of the rumor.
The committee retired ana after consulta-
ton decided the evidence was not admissa-
bic.
Continuing, the witness said that Baker,
Bolts & Baker had sent telegram TO his
firm.
MIR Black asked what induced the tele-
GRIN. and Mr.. Finley objected.
The objection was sustained.
Mr. Finley also objected when the witness
was asked what the contents of the tele-
gram were.
It was decided that the witness was not
qualified to tell. as he did not exactly know.
The witness continuing said that when
the case came up for trial on February ), a
paper purporting to be an intervention of
the Missouri, Kansas and Texas railway
was produced. The witness said he had
never seen the paper and they asked for
time te examine it. This was objected to
by the other side on the ground that the
receivership might be taken TO the Federal
court. The court finally appointed
Messrs. Finley and Bonner asreceivers. In
the meantime H. c. Cross, one Of the re-
ceivers of the Missouri, Kansas and Texas
railway, arrived in Tyler and it was decided
that the witness should go 10 Col. Bonner
and ask him to accept. The witness did so
and the colonel accepted. On the
Saturday following he met Col. Herndon
who appeared to be very angry at the turn
of events. He said that on Thursday night
Judge McCord had come ito his office and
promised him that he would appoint Col.
Bonner He was mad because MIR. Finley
had been appointed and intimated |
that he would withdraw his in
PREVENTION and abandon the case
He said he told Judge McCord that unless
he promised to appoint Col. Bonner ne
would withdraw his intervention, and Judge |
McCord promised he would do So MIR |
Chiffon, in company Of MIR. Bonner, offered |
the witnesses firm the position of local at |
torneys which they refused. Mr.. Bonner |
had said that he was only one of two |
receivers and he could not have his own |
way. On the 25rh Or 10Th of February the |