The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-07-26
JDGE MALLS LETTER
Writes to Governor Savers About The
Waiers.Pierce Permit.
kKs ADMINISTRATION is INCONSISTENT
,re. mr. the Texas Law Has
neen outrnged-A Mere Sub
terfuge and Frnud.


for the legislature from Travis county,
n,ly addressed the following open let
10 Governor Sayers;
|ernor Joseph d. Sayers, Austin, Texas.
I,stiu Texas, July 20, 19O0.-Dear Gov
br; Being both your personal and po-
lal friend. and knowing that your
is so fully occupied by matters de-
Iding your personal attention as to
l. YOU little or no opportunity for the
liberation of other things. feel i'm
Id both by friendship and a sense Of
TO point out to you current of events
condition which confronts the STATE
reason thereof.
In men who give any honest thought
e. consideration OF economic questions
failed to realize the great danger
H. is threatening this country from
trust. The people have become so
toughly aroused over this mater as TO
H. all political parties TO incorporate
heir platforms a plank demanding the
Eression of this evil, and every State
HE Union Is enacting laws, which. II
d.
of this curse to commerce and
. lace 10 free government. Texas, as
Nknow. has been pioneer in this line
jegislation. AS far back as 1889 the
&lature of this State passed an act
kned to suppress trusts and combina-
Il of all kinds entered into for tn,
bose of restricting natural and un-
nmelled trade relations among the
Biz. This act was amended in 1895 TO
"A certain defscts found to exist in IL
Nc courts. Those wEo had to do Win
Eenactment OF these laws were con
II ed by many, for the public mind and
6cience had not then become fully
0sed to the insdious growth and in
Nee OF these corporate conspiracies.
M was urged that u wall was being
II around our State which would keep
MAJ and commerce beyond our boun-
afs, but those who bore the brunt OF
"a criticisms and ordinations We're
Nd by pure and patriotic purposes, and
Ne light Of later events it has been
~ that they builded bater than they
~. During your own administration
sixth legislature passed, an
Wapproyed what was and is generally
>posed TO be a most drastic and effeo-
II anti-trust law, and the fact that this
S.sNas passed by both branches OF our
Mature comprising in the aggregate
Ernemb4rs. with but one negative vote
rs how the sentiment Gntagonistic to
Hbkind of legislation has been dissipate1
ing the past few years, and emphasizes
with which the people ol
III stand opposed to insatiate corporate
9hder the act OF 1889. referred 10 above
tat,orney general instituted suit against
lain insurance companies in this State
|Ich had according TO the allegations
he testimony entered into comb
Ion to maintain uniform rates OF fire
Hfance. This prosecution was pursued
04he offending companies only escaped
mason Of the existence of certain de-
III in the law, which were remedied a:
fabut above In the act OF 1895. The
IE prosecution of any moment was thai
f1b against the Waters Pierce OIL COM.
~ In 1897 there was filed in the dis
ct court OF Travis county by the at
|4ey general, a suit in the name of thu
M, charging said company with viola
IA OF the anti-trust laws, and askinl
~ its permit 10 do business in Texas
'cancslled and that an injunction ISSUE
Itrp lining it perpetually from engagin.
fbpsiness in this State, This case was
4hed by the attorney general to judg
}nt and the trial court upon the YER
Ftpf a jury, and after hearing all tn,
7enses which shrewd, able and persisten
&ofel could urge for the defendant com
WI rendered judgment in accordance
|H4 the prayer of the petition. revokint
"a n n he pT "a, ~,
m era.e in Texas and forever eujoinini
Faters-Pierce Oil company from en-
I1g in any business in this State. Thos
|2 rned were not satisfied with this de
[j1p and were loud in their denuncia
~ Texas laws and Texas courts. The,
led and the court of civil appeal
Pc Third district, and the supremt
W OF he State sustained every jot AM
Of the judgment OF the trial court
he defendant company was not sails
M They took the case to the suprem
Of the United States. At last the,
to get before the haven of the for
corporation, a Federal court, an
Welt easy and laughed a laugh OF de
al Texas, her officers and her laws
Ulcers followed, and with facts an
and eloquence they met the defense
|K defendant in the highesJ court G
~ mon, and that court sustained eac'
80 The courts of our State whic
3SPassed upon this case. The Stat
a good fight and had won, tn
ny had fought good fight and ha
3!'tt The Warrior and relentless enem
i. ;pecame the diplomat and ingratiatin
'3<tq II was here that the company be
~ &egotaiions with certain State off
~ ior the issuance of a new licens
1.1q would allow the Waters Pierce o.
ny 10 continue trahsacting bushes
lJekas.
Rnrently there were some difference
\. QHnion between those representing tn
and those appearing at the confer
f> on behalf of the company. for MI
HHX Fierce, In an open letter to YOU
1 W. ney, dated May 81, 1900, says;
xfse differences OF opinion have nc
moved 10 mar our conferences hel
&t# purpose of deciding upon the hes
} OF enabling the State officials t
A'e the law as interpreted by A.
H General Smith. Accepting AttoI
%enerll Smiths Interpretation OF tn
Is Wa ers- Pierce Oil company whic
Incorporated in Missouri May I, 1877
,3ssolYed on the 2Sth day of May, 1901
WHe new Waters Pierce OIL compan
;e.. eorporatad under the laws OF MIS-
III. may 70 1900. A certificate OF tn
OF the new company, issued b
~ ~ 1'retary Of state of Missouri, has thi
t,<, Med with Secretary OF STAT
M consequently the State OF Texs
ued license TO the Waters PierC
W,pany to transact business With
<<7 are enacted with the expectatio
a.. ey are to be enforced and IN n
hesl Of Them it is supposed tn.
ESs no break them are to be punlshel
II3< se II We're mere mockery and wast
< 70 enact them. From the foregoln
nor appear tina the law whlc
egarded by tho Waters Pierce o
Tx mas been Nndicated In the slight