The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-06-18

Mr. Finley also objected when Wit
aesa was asked what the contents OF
+hn telegram were Ii was decided
thar fire witness was not qualified 20
, tsII a. as did rot eXactlN know wiz.
80, committing, said that when the
case came up for trial on February 10
that paper purportlng TO oe an III,
tarveption of the Missouri. Kansas and
Texas railway was produced. witness
said he had never seen the paper ana
they asked for time to examine it.
This was objected to by the other
side on the grounds that the receiver,
ship might be taken to the federal
court.
The court finally appointed Messrs
Finley and Bonner as receivers. In
the meantime H. @. Cross, one OF the
receivers of the Missouri. Kansas and
Texas Railway, arrived in Tyler, and
il was decided that witness should go
to Col. Bonner and ask him to accept.
Witness did so and the Colonel &C
cepted. On 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 to his office and
promised him that he would appoint
Col. Bonner. He was mad because
Mr.. Finley had been appointed, and
intimated that he would withdraw his
intervention and abandon 1t.
He said he told Judge McCord that
unless he promised to appoint Col.
Bonner, he would withdraw the inter
yention, aud Judge McCord promised
he would do so. Mr.. Chiffon in COM
pany with Mr.. Bonner offered witness
firm the position of local attorneys.
which they refused. Mr. Bonner had
said that he was only one OF two re-
ceivers and he eonld not have his way
On Feb. 25 or %, witness went to New
York to confer with his client. Jay
Gould, and the result was petition to
carry the case to the federal court on
two grounds.
First. The non residence of Mr..
Gould.
Second. Prejudice and local in
huence.
Witness saw Colonel Herndon and
showed him the petition in the case
and the papers, and told him he would
take action on them unless Colonel
Eddy was appointed as one of the
receivers. Colonel Eddy was general
manager of the road for some years
during GoUld's management. Colonel
Herndon agreed to the demand and
also to the other demand that all OBJ
jections to Gould's suit should be
withdrawn and judgment allowed
him.
Mr.. Gresham asked il that was with
out ascertaiDing the wishes of the M.
K. & It. people.
In the matter OF Campbells com
pensation some argument was INDUCED
in. as to the advisability OF introducing
testimony.
Objected to by Mr. Duncan.
The committee decided to allow it
and witness said that Mr.. Duncan had
warned Judge McCord against his con.
templated action of ordering the sum
of money paid to Campbell and said
that it would ruin him (the judge if he
did so. Judge McCord replied that he
could not help it. Mr.. Campbell had
claimed that the judge had promised
it to him and held him to his terms
This conversation took place on Jan.
"a, 1891. On the death of Col. Eddy,
Mr.. Campbell was appointed to the
position of receiver, although paper
was received by witness from New
York and filed before the appointment,
protesting against it. After some
futher examination, during which
matters of no great Importance were
elected. Mr.. Duncan took witness.
There was some talk about sharing
the spoils" and witness said he had
made the remark in connection with
the case in question.
On being asked who wrote the letter
to Judge Gerald, from which the in
quiry originated, Mr.. Clark objected,
but Judge Gerald handed the letter
to Mr.. Duncan with the remark that
he would find both letters there-his
letter to Mr.. Whitaker and that gen
tleman's reply.
Witness then admitted writing the
letter. He said that his firm hal put
a bill in court for $4,000 for services
rendered the |. e. q. N. railway, but
they had Withdrawn it. Ga being
asked if they had any hopes of getting
the money, he replied that they had.
The inquiry subsequently adjourned
until 10 Il. Ill. tomorrow.