The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-07-27
GEN. SMITH AND MR.HOGG
Debated Before the Bar Association as 10
The Laws Of Texas
GRANTING OF THE wATtRS.PItRCE PERMIT
nyas the Subject Matter and There
WAS Considerable Fire inJecteo
into the Discussion.

Galveston, Texas, July 2s.-Attorney
General Smith and Ex-Governor Hogg me-
in debate today before the Texas Bar as
ISOLATION, the subject matter being the
granting of permit to do business tc
the new Waters-Pierce Oil company. MT
Hogg made some severe structures yes
terday on the course OF the attorney gen
eral and today Attorney General Smith
replied to these criticisms. Hogg making a
reIoinder in line with his criticisms of the
day before. There was considerable hre
injected into the debate and neither gen
tleman appeared otherwise than anxious
to enter the debate.
Mr.. Smith began by referring TO tno
fact that the company was not interiereu
with while Hogg was attorney goneral IA
1889 Notwithstanding L mad gone into the
GrusO in 1882. He then stated that the
old Waters-Pierce OIL company was dis
solved and that they obtained their new
charter In The State Of Missouri, the laws
of which State forbid the issuance OF chaT-
tors TO Two corporations of the same name.
The old company had, therefore, cea.ed
to exist, as both the old and new charters
were granted in that State, When he
new company made application for char
ter IL contained the name of only one per-
son who was connected with the old one,
and President Pierce made affidavit that 1t
had no connection with any trust.
Mr.. Smith then stated that Texas had
not jurisdiction as far as the charter
rights were concerned, as the charter was
granted in Missouri. He then cited the
case of Beatty VS.. Hardy, Fifty-thitd
Southwestern Reporter, in which the SUI
preme court ruled that when a corpora
don had complied with the law and when
a charter showed that 1t had complied
with the law the secretary of state should
file he charter. and in the case referred
to an imperative writ Of mandamus was
granted to force the secretary TO comply
with the law.
Mr. Smkh held that in the case OF
Waters-Pierce Oil company the secretary
of state would have been compelled to
file ,he charter under the law.
In his reply. Hogg said: That institu
ton was held by the courts of the coun-
try to be Illegal and trust. defiant of
the constitution and the laws There
wasn't a change OF its legal status, eX
cept by getting a so-caled charter the
next day. 1t didn't even change the
mules who were drawing its wagons, It
didn't change the drivers who were driv-
ing those mules; it didn't change its
agents it didn't change It's contracts
with the railroad companies; it didn't
change its property an iota; it didn't
change its books or accounts it didn't
change its name; il didn't change the
instrumentalities under which it was
declared a trust IL our trust laws are
to be held under such precarious condl-
lions as that We had as well wipe them
out.
They are effective: the trouble is that
tney are not enforced. | viii nor sub
scribe to a hint that What las oeep done
Is a legal course to pursue in the en-
forcement of our laws. This corporation
was found criminally guilty. and It has
never been whipped of It's crime. Tk,re
was law there prescribing a penalty OF
500 day for every person belong.ns to
mat trust. but It hasn't Neen enforced.
let their president comes into Texas.
confessed criminal. stalks n the State
capital, treating with the State officials.
uhWnpned Of justice. That Is what holds
our laws in contempt. There has .been
no punishment; IL has been avoided nv
suotertuge, a subterfuge that would
never have been considered by court
II the matter had been submitted to It.
hs secretary of state, by his oath of
oiuce. is pledged 10 enforce the law
say mat he had a right to question the
legality OF that concern, TO have refused
u permit, and 10 have raised the issue
properly. You tell me he cant do that
suppose there is a corporation formed
IN Arkansas for the purpose of murderin,
people. and its charter is presented fo
me secretary OF state Of Texas Womb
ne secretary of state have granted the
permit? No: because It would have bean
an illegal concern. He is required to ad-
my only legal concerns. Suppose a cor-
Doration IS chartered in Kansas m Inv
ma sell lands in Texas. The seoret9ry
u state OF Texas wouldn't grant a ner.
mn to that corporation because tho la,y
oro'as the operation OF corporatron. -,
may KIND here. Suppose any other H.
esal corporation had presented .artic1es
u lncorporaton and asked for nerIni,
o 90 business IN Texas. would The COO,
'etsry Of state have granted a hermit IN
ne lace lace OF the fact that he knew il -
,e Illegal? No. sill; because tbe 8rst
luy OF an officer is TO enforce no ,ar,
W men there, is doubt along his natbw,y
Is hs treads it In tho execution NJ ~,
,uy' as TO the legality OF his stems he
~ nu5 re! haIt end turn back The doubt must
u, IN an interview in an afternoon na,.n
vi, smith refers rather warmly 70 p" eS
L..