The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-01-18

ahc county attorney of McLennau
county with a Wow of compromising
said suits that the proposition OF
Compromise submitted by said Porce
was tho payment Of $4,000 (ten
thousand dollarsl ITO the state in
full Of her claims and the payment of
5000 (three thousand and FIVE hum
dred dollarsl TO the county attorney
as an extra foe for advisius the COM
promise. and that said Bailey in
dorsed taid proposition and urged dts
acceptance. n. A. McFall
Representative Travis County.
TAa above having been read Mr..
Bailey arose and sai1.--lnd his statement
was noyoa on the mnutes--that the al
legation that he had proposed that Mr..
Thomas receive anything above or IN
addition to his legal commission in the
case was absolutely false, and that his
visit to Austin in MAY, 1900, had nothing
10 10 with tho Waters-Plcrco matter.
Mr. McFall was then called for and 1t
developed that he would not be present,
as he WAS sim too III TO appear before
the committee,
MIR Callcn NJ Thomas was called to the
stand and sworn lie knew nothing Of
the transactions leading up to the read
mission OF the Waters-Plerce oil COM
puny 20 Texas, neither did he knew OF
opythIns Refreshing upon oir. Bailey in
connection Herewith,
Going into the story Of the states lit
llgstIon with Inc W5tcrs-pierce on com.
pany he told what he 1suew OF the PEN
atty suit brought IN Mct.enuan county
against the company Reaching The point
whero the negotiations which led UP 10
tho controversy eliminating in the
pending investigation began he said that
Mir. Bailey came to Waco last May ard
him with regard 90 the WaterS-Picrce
OIL company cases in McLeunan county.
saying that he had promised his friend.
| pave I1ranois. 20 sec II something could
not he done to settle thom, and ropod he
could consistently adjust them That
same morning he had attended eonfor-
cnco at which Judge Scott and MosgrS.
lIenry and Stribllng were present, az
which the matter of compromise was
discussed. Mr.. Henry stated that Mr.,
Pierce was In the city with his attorney
Mr. johnson OF st. Louis. for toe puE-
in the courts. Henry said that Mr. Pierce
would make an offer to pay the stata
$4,000 or si2 besides paying Henry
and StrlblIng. attorneys OF record for
the prosecution. a fee Of $4,000, and that
Henry and Striking would give n9m
crhomas) their statutory interest in the
penalty collected.
In reply he stated that he was not SUI
f1clently familiar with the case to know
what would be proper to accept by WY
OF compromise. and that he did not think
IL would be proper for the attorneys tn
receive any extra compensation. Henry
and stribllng said they would take tho
! responsibility for that. Judge Scott was
present at the conference and said he
would approve any Judgment tho atter-
neys might agree to- Later, AIR. Thomas
went to Henry and Stribling's office, ne
said and there met MI Pierce, MI
Stribliug and Mr. Henry. Mr.. Bailey came
lin IN a few minutes and a general as
eusgion OF the Waters Pierce cases en-
sued. Mr. Pierce denied any connection
with the standard Oil company. the suits
and indictments against Mr.. Pierce IN
McI,ennan county being based upon al
legged connection OF his company with the
standard Al that conference no speeinc
proposition was made by Mr.. Pierce. Mr..
Bailey said in substance that ne kne"
in /, general way OF the merits OF the
Waters IPlerce cases. That he did not
know much about Mr. Pierce. That he
had become interested in the matter az
the instance OF his friend, ID. r. Francis,
for whom he could vouch and who said
he could vouch for Mr.. Pierce. Had told
Pierce that he needed no attorneys ana
that his only interest in the matter vas
as a citizen OF Texas who wanted 10 see
It's laws respected and obeyed witnoul