The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-05-07
.WATERS-PIERCE OIL co.
HAS Been perpetuaIly EuloIned from Doing
Business In This State.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Has Issued It's Manifesto to that hr
feet and the state ofactais
VIII Enforce IL.

Austin, Texas. May 6.--ln view OF the
amount Of speculation being INDUCED IN
by newspaper correspondents and others
with regard to the status of the Waters
Pierce OIL company in the State. the fol-
lowing facts In the premises win prove
Of interest. MIR. Pierce. president of the
company, and his attorneys have twice
visited Attorney General Smith for the
purpose OF getting him to agree to some
kind of a modus viyendi under which the
company could remain in the State. On
their first visit they protessed ability to
show that the Waters-P Pierce concern is
In no wise controlled by the standard
oil monopoly and announced ready to
enter into agreements to in tho future
strictly observe the laws of Texas. The
mandate of the supreme court of the
United States not having at that lime
reached him, the attorney general de-
clned to DO anything but listen to what
his callers had TO say.
Last week Mr.. Pierce and his attorney
Mr. Johnson returned and iled with tho
secretary OF state an application for a
new permit to transact buslness In Texas,
their former permit having expired about
two years ago and renewal thereof hay-
ing been refused pending settlement of
the suits brought by the state to euloin
the Waters-Porce company from con-
tnuing In business In Texas, because OF
It's disregard Of the antitrust law. From
the secretary OF states office these gen
temen proceeded 10 Mr., Smiths Depart
ment and informed him OF the hling OF tho
application above referred to- The man
date Of the supreme court OF the United
States In the Waters Pierce case having
reached here since Mr.. Plerces FIRST
visit Mr.. Smith called his attention there
to. and read theretrom that Mr. Piorco's
company was henceforth perpetuaily en-
Joined from setting up shop In Texas and
that It's former permit to do so was can
celled and annulled Mir Johnson, Mr..
Pierce's attorney argued that the can
collation. Of the former permit did not
carry with Il the denial OF tho right 10
q new one, provided the States antitrust
law was not violated In the future
Mr.. Smith replied that tho Waters
Pierce company had been perpetually en-
Joined from continuing in business in
Texas by tho highest court IN the lend
and that no power could save It from OK
pulsion
Mr.. Smith was next asked what ne
would do II the secretary OF state should
grant the company a new permit to do
business In the state, In reply he stated
that while he was not dealing IN futures
Just then. he had no objection ia indieat-
ing that the necessary action would be
taken by himself II the mandate OF the
supreme court was not obeyed, and that
his visitors might. without trouble. as
certain what his course would be by re-
sisting its execution. TO this they re
torted that they had no inclination to fur
iher litigato with the state and that all
ihey wanted was peaceful settlement II
iuch could he mad. Finally Mr. Smith
igrecd to suspend until May Is execution
IF the mandate oXpeling the Waters
Pierce company from the State to give
2 an opportunity to get Itself in shape |
o fold it's tent and movo.
Subsequently Secretary OF State Hardy |
'oterred the Maters-PierCe application for |
new permit to do business In the state |
o Mr.. Smith. and II was returned with a |
Written opinion TO the effect that It can |
lot be granted in the face Of the decision |
u me supreme court OF the United States |
hirmlng the decision of the State courts
that concern. Mr. Hardy has I
Il yet neither granted nor refused said
ernit, and viii reserve his decision in
he matter until after May 10, The date
greed upon as the limit OF the respite
HHtCu the coupbny from execution OF
he supreme courts mandate.
Whether or not the Waters-Pierce peo-
lie VIII take further steps to, II possible
void expulsion is problematical Mr.
'lerce who has returned to 81. Louis. said
nile here that he had enough OF ltiga-
ION. and bis attorney could not Gee very
learly that further appeals to the courts
'ould bring about anything substantial in
he shape Of relief As 10 the attorney
eneral he is determined upon the exoeu-
Ion OF the supreme courts mandate un-
er which there is no hope for the oil
eople