The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-07-25
WATERS.PIERCE PERM
An interview with Attorney George Clark
on the Matter.
ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD NO RECOURSE
other Than TO Advise that the Char.
ter he Granted ms Prayed For by
the New Company.

is an interview with Judge George Clark
of Waco on the open letter OF Judge d.
A. McFall to the governor about the
waters-Pierce Oil company permit to do
business;
THE open letter of Mr.. McFall to the
governor is rather sensational, and al
together inaccurate in its sensationalism
"our interviews with State officials oc-
CURED in their public offices at the capt.
toll and there was nothing secret about
them. We had legal right to go TO the
capitol and talk with the attorney general
and present to him our views of the law
as applicable to existing conditions. This
we did openly. The attorney general
reached conclusion that the old company
had to 60 We insisted that the effect
OF the Judgment and the extent of its
operation was to cancel the permit Issued
in 1889, and 1his permit having expired
by its own limitation In 1898 prior to the
decision of United States supreme court,
the judgment was necessarily tunctus
officio. The attorney general declined to
accede to the contention. Thereafter we
presented the charter of a new corpora
ton, accompanied with the necessary af-
fidavit and proof of dissolution Of the old
company and he took time for considera-
ton, reaching a conclusion (Which, as
lawyers, we knew he must reach) that
there was no legal power in the secretary
of State to refuse permit to the new
corporation. The new corporation could
not hive violated any law of Texas.
ITO those VINO are disposed to criticise
these officials, the following questions arc
addressed and a candid answer requested:
Fl. Dces a judgment of forfeiture in
case OF a foreign corporation reach so far
as to prevent even the original share
holders Of that corporation from abandon
ing the corporation by unanimous consent
and organize a new oneS
"2. Does a judgment Of forfeiture reach
so far as to prevent some of the share
holders Of the corporation from combin
Ing their capital with new capital, or from
purchasing the interest OF other owners
In the deiunct concern, organizing a new
corporation. purchasing the property OF
the defunct concern, and lawfully en-
gaging thereafter In the same business?
90. If the laws OF Texas are so drastic
that the effect OF Judgment OF forfeiture
OF permit OF foreign corporation is to
preclude the shareholders of such cor
poration from recognizing or reineor-
porating so as to obtain admission into
Texas. than what law OF the State pre-
vents entire stnlngers to the original
Incorporation from organizing new COR
poration In another State. with power 10
transact the same business as the defunct
or forbidden company. and obtaining a
permit to continue the same business in
Texas?
4. Are not shares OF stock In an in
eorporated company transferable by law?
And in the case last put is there any
law of Texas or the judgment OF any court
In Texas which could prevent the corpora
tion from purchasing the property of the
old corporation? And could not the in
corporators Of the new company trans
Ter their holding to whorlsocver they
Of the old company?
D, II these transactions are legitimate
Gas they Gre). why insist that the dem
snail be whipped around the stamp unless
our purpose Is 10 deceive the unthinking
and the ignorant? Is IL not more dig.
nlhed in n great state to concede frankly
necessary result which it can not pre-
vent without insisting upon deception and
indirecton upon The pait OF thlse who
may apply for privileges?
L. Did judgment OF forfeiture destroy
the property Of the Old company in Texas?
Us permanent irvestmcn. upon which ii
pays taxes is about $500, 900 Dhat is to
become of this' Somebody must own IT,
The State can rot condscate or destroy
IL. If the State takes INTO possess,nn
through receive II can no; keen IL always
ii belongs to the old Stockholders, aod
If sold By order OF court SOMEBODY must
tuy 1t. Is there any law which can pre-
vent these old stockholders from huying
il in. either directly or indirectly, and
then organizing new corporation. either
in Texas or elsewhere hn1 hen utilizing
the properly for the same purposes as aiI
The old company?
These questions are put for a purpose and
are intended TO Illustrate what has been
apparent to thinking men for some time.
the difficulties with the trust question from
a legal standpoint The Waters Pierce OIL
eompeny was called into court by the
State chiefly because of a prevalent belief
that i was part OF the Standard Oil
trus;. If the officers of the State had
not so believed. no suit would have baen
instituted. Upon trial proof to that eff
feet was so weak that the presiding Judge,
most capable lawyer and in thorough
sympathy with be Stale and the public.
withdrew that feature OF the case from
the jury. Upon that trial Mr.. Perce tes-
tined that the Waters Pierce Oil company
had never been a member or the trust.
nor had the trust in any manner controlled
or Influenced its action. Forfeiture was
upon NOHtf 1--WE UT Dix hiuhll
transactions between local agents and
merchants - different localities, involving
the fixing OF prices 10 consumers during
sharp competition at those special points.
The law was indicated the company was
published What more would the STATE
ask or have7 What possible benefit could
accrue TO the people OF Texas by driving
this investment fron the State. even IL
they had me power TO do so! Who would
be benefited except few iobbers. by fore
ing a return to methods Of oil distribution.
discarded as obsolete and disastrous to
consumers more than twenty years ago?
MIR. Pierce has beon dealing with the pep
pie of Texas since 1873. and oil has been
SO cheapened that We kindle Ares with it.
and XII a score or two OF our children
every few months The agitotlon has been
utilized to bccst our politicians into Of
nee. and is doing pregnant service in our
political platforms roday. 1t IS useful 10
The politician. and as political pro9lem
is of easy solution. But when grappled
with as a legal question we are confront
cd under constitutions. limitations aud
cur system OF government. with difficult
Ties apparently iRsui mouniable In so far
as practical results are concerned. So
cialism can rectiiy the supposed evil, and
so could absolI ism. The remedy in
either case is worse than the disease.