The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-08-09

hand in the attacks made upon him on
account of the Waters Pierce matter.
Bailey said that he was glad TO hear il
and that he would take Hogg's word for
1t, telling him, however, that he had said
some very mean things about him and
that he had meant them. The conversa-
tion continued In this strain for few
minutes, after which they separated, APP
parently in pleasant humor and the in
cident closed
HENRY AND STRIBBL1NG STATE
MENT.
The following was given out tonight by
Messrs. Henry and Strlbbling in reply TO
the statement Of Mr.. Thomas appearing ia
today's fost:
We have Just noticed the interview
gwen out by Cullen Thomas appearing In
The Post Of August s, 1900. This state
ment, in view OF the many inaccuracies
appearing therein, could not be given out
by him for the purpose of doing Justice to
all parties concerned therein. as he pre-
tends 1t was, but for some other and diff
ferent motive which Is not stated In the
article. The statement is so full of in
accurate ana incorrect assertions that 1t
can not be accepted in any sense as fair
statement, and We shall therefore state
the mSserial facts.
In the nrst place, joan D. BOOKSELLER
and others were not indicted by the grand
jury OF McLennan county in 1895, as the
county attorney states, put they were In
dicted in 1894 for violating the anti trust
law while X. L. Henry was assistant al
torney general OF the state of Texas and
o. l.. stribbling was assistant county at
y torn ~ ~ Iva emit ph ss
Mr.. Thomas claims TO be prosecuting
these cases, he should KNOW the date on
which the indictment was found when h
pretends to state the facts concerning
the same. The suit To recover penalties
was instituted in April, 1885, by the Arm
of Henry & Strbbling, in connection with
J. w. Taylor, who wsn suen county at
torney.
| The agreement between j. w Taylor
and Henry & Stribbling as to the fee was
not that Henry & Striboling should have
an equal division OF the 10 per cent at
torreys fees provided by law" but the
positive conirac; between }. W. Taylos
and Henry & StribbIing was that J W.
Taylor was TO have one-tnhd OF the com
missions allowed by law, ana Henry ~
Stribbling were to have Two thirds OF the
commissions allowed by law, thus taking
an equal division Of the commissions be-
tween Taylor Henry & strihbling of one
/ third each. This suit was for something
over 100000 at the rate uf $50 per day
/ for each day the Wlters-Pierce OIL 1or-
! pany had violated the ANTITRUST
| laws OF Texas. vs. w:ote the
pleadings, propounded the interrog-
atories, briefed the case and took every
step that has been taken In this ease roi
the recovery OF the penalty. We followed
the case to the Federal court, 10 whicr
court the Waters-Pierce oil company hac
attempted to remove 1t, and argued
motion to remand the same TO the star,
court, which motion WAS granted, Mr.
Taylor never rendered any assistance Il
us In the preparation and the prosecution
! of the case. Mr.. Thomas succeeded Mr.
I Taylor as county attorney aud has never
rendered the slightest service to us witt
/ reference 10 The prosecution OF this suit
the motion TO remand was argued in tine
Federal court during his inGumheney a
tounty attorney and lie Wa notified o
the date when the motion would be calleC
for argument and was requested and urgef
to be present and take part therein. Pre-
sumably he took no interest In the case
as he did not appear
! The suit at Austin instituted by Attor,
ney General Crane for the forfeiture o
>he permit of tae Waters-Pierce Oil com
eany 10 do business in Texas was pase'
On the petition framed by our firm in th
Ease here. We mailed to the ettorne.
general a copy OF our petition and hi
petition is almost in the Identical Ian
guage of ours We furnished him tn
Names of many of thn>~ illnesses and
statement OF a great many Of the fact
} .dduced in the trial OK that case at Aus
tin. Upon our petition-and largely upol
the evidence taken by us in deposition
at an expense of SS00--the attorney gen
sral successfully prosecuted the case a
Austin.
J Now as to the facts connected with al
attempted compromise OF the penalfy
suit. Mr. Thomas states; The sam
FORENOON I was invited to confer viii
: Messrs Henry and Stribling ana Judg
scott at the Pacific hotel. Henry an
, Striking said that II, c. Pierce was II
a Waco with his attorney, John D. johnson
NJ At Louis. aud that he wanted to com
. promise the civil suit; that they pelleve'
} Mr.. Pierce would agree TO Judgment
, about $4,000; that he woulo pay 70 ghsn
$4,000 extra as fee; that .they wouia re
, linauish their interest in Inc 10 per cen
~ ne Judgment making my fee ais
sioo0" We state this is not fact. Som
lime ,n NAV. 1900, II. q. Pierce did an
. near In Waco and stated that he wishe
10 settle the penalty suit against IN
waters Pierce Oil company
As soon as he made known 70 US ~
/ purpose we took into consultation WIZ
our Arm Mr. Thomas and helo our confer
, ence all the while N the presence Of am
Win District Judge Sam R. Scott, befor
whom he suit was pending After con
ferrina for some line We concluded tina
Judgment for sl2,500 for the state an
S26oo cor the attorneys fees Tor Henr
striblinx would be good settlemea
|, for "a stste. We were familiar wst
: the case in al its details aads our Iaasuf