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

good settlement Tor the state and q
reasonable compensation for the laoors
we had performed m preparation OF the
case, lnasmuSh as the statutes allowed
commission Of IS per cent to the cennty
attorney on all penalties recovered under
the antitrust statutes. We stated ex-
plicitly in he presence OF the district
Judge and the county attorney that what
ever fee We got should 10 in the REGARD
and be part OF the Judgment ana should
appear in the Judgment as the fee paid
no us by the defendant as a part OF tho
compromise and that this Judgment ana
the statement should be given to the
press This would have amounted 10 a
Judgment for the State and for the firm O.
Henry 4 Stribling IN the aggregate sum
OF S15,500. We did not In this conference
with Mr.. Pierce agree to take $4,000 for
the State, as asserted by she county at
| torney. In the conference w,-h the
\ county attorney, before oonferring with
Air, Pierce. the county attorney stated
that he did not know what would be a
proper judgment for the Safe. as he
was unacquainted with the facts In tho
case and was unable TO form any idea as
to the amount the State should recover
in the suit. and that he Thought Instead.
of agreeing on a definite amount as we
advocated. that we should hrst "dicker"
With Mr.. Pierce and ascertain from him
what amount he was willing to pay This
the State of Texas should tell Mr.. Pierce
what amount OF money 1t would take for
him to settle ahe penalty suit and stand
firm on that proposition. Mr. Thomas
stated that he thought we should ask se5,-
600.
Judge Scott. in this same conference
and in the presence Of all concerned in
the suit. stated that he thought $40 O00
for the State and $4,000 for Henry & Strlb-
ling as attorneys fec would be fair
and reasonable settlement for the State
and q settlement that he would approve.
In all OF our conferences with the county
attorney. we agreed that should set
Element be made upon these terms we
would relinuuish to him or the State. as
ne thought proper. our interest In what
ever commission was allowed by law TO
the county attorney. II Mr.. Thomas Of
heial dignity or Integrity was offended at
these statements he did not at that time
resent the same, although made in the
presence of the district Judge He has
waited long time TO complain. In fact,
he did not base his objection to the set
Element on that ground, Mr.. Thomas
further says I'm answer to my inquiry as
to what had TRANSFERRED after | left the
other confidence. learned from them that
they had told Mr. Pierce that each OF
them favored $4,000 and that Judge Scott
was IN favor OF the same amount but that
/ would not agree TO less than S25 900 /
stated to them that they had violated the
agreement made with me in the morn
ing; that by so doing they disarmed the
State in making better settlement; that
by their breach of faith was handicapped
In demanding $4,000 when two or three
attorneys aud the district judge thought
600 enough"
We state that this is not fact Mr..
Thomas wanted to "dicker' and see what
Pierce was willing to give. We thought
$l2,50O would be a good settlement and
Judge Scott thought 200 would be a
good settlement We did not agree with
Mr.. Thomas that we should 'dicker' with
Mr.. Pierce; we did not prevent Mr..
Thomas making an offef~of SIS 900 by com
municating anything TO Mr.. Pierce. His
statement Is not fact in reference 10 that
matter Furthermore, the couu - attorney
says we then proposed that we diln SIS
the civil suit from the docket, to snow,
as Mr.. Henry said, his disinterestedness
MS to fees" This fatty refused and
stated that under no circumstances wou d
the case be dismissed; that under n
sort Of compromise would i raufy their
taking fee from the defendant aud ttat
J We would fight the case out In the courts.
, %r or lose. This conversation did not oc-
l cur as stated by the county attorney We
2 stated TO the county attorney that II Pierce
would plead guilty and the county attor-
Ivy Mibheu ~ tudl III l1c SNtnL Ol I ltltt q
/ pleading guilty we were willing to permit
i him to dismiss the penalty suits aud lose
our fee entirely II he could thus secure a
conviction in the criminal cases, and Mr..
; Henry said In that alleged conversation
, that he thought Pierce and others Shout
, be prosecuted and under no circumstance
should he felony case be dis
missed. We never agreed for him
!. TO dismiss the penalty suit ex-
cept upon condition that he could got
plea 81 guilty tn the GEiIninal case. We
, are informed by the Arm of Clark & Boil
, niger that Mr.. Thomas agreed il Mr.
, Pierce would enter plea Of guilty that
the lowest penalty namely a fine Of 500
should be assessed against. the defendant
, Pierce In the criminal case. The higheH
penalty would he a fine Of $4,000 and i'm
prisonment in the penitentiary, the OF
Tense being a felony. Mr.. Thomas say'
further in the conference held In jun
that Mr.. Pierce proposed that ne woulc
pay also to Messrs Henry g. Stribblng a
!, pay also 10 Messrs. Hepry Striking I
fee of $4,000 ("Thelr fee having grown
: between Mr.. Plerces trips from $4,000 Il
. S3000') Our fee was never mentioned a
: less than $4,000. Mr.. Pierce in this con
: ference agree to pay Judgment Of $4,000
$40 600 30 70 to the state and $4,000 to th'
!, firm of Henry & Stribling. or the entir'
n amount to be paid TO the state as he onil
proposed to pay $4,000 and IT was iinna
/, terial to him what division was made 0
i this amount between the State ant
=. the attorneys Thrty-hve per cen
!, OF this amount. that being the com
missions allowed under the amendef
4 act, and which was discussef
!, in this conference would be 1850. Henry
A & stribbling's two-thirdS Of that amount
: would be s5OS4 Mr. Thomas one-thlrl
would be S15I7 Under the terms proposed
by US, judgment was to be rendered foi
: the State for $40 900 and $4,000 Tor our fee
# with an ass gnment by us to the State o
: our two thirds interest in the 80 per cen
d commission on the $4,000 Under Thu
e arrangement, Mr. Thomas fee would b.
y sl166 and the State would get SsSaA Will
S under Thomas proposition that the iu LIZ
+ ment should be in favor OF the State foi
c the entire sum of $4,000 ana no commits.
a sion divided between us, the State woult
s only get Ss4s4, thus making difference
in favor of our proposition of 1884 II
n fsv5r Of the State, while under Mr.
8 Thomas proposition a difference of sS5t
+ against the State and IN his favor. Wher
! st was finally determined that no settle
mont would be agreed to By the count,
n attorney upon the basis Of our receiyni