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

u,uL~tns defeudznts Thought Henry
and STRIKING ought 10 be paid lioeFa.
fee for their services. Had agreed with
Henry and strIbling not 20 MAKE Any
proposition 10 Mr. pierce. Did not know
shaf Mr.. Bailey knew Of the proposition
made by Henry end stribifng TO him
fThomas) left Msssrs. Pierce, Henry.
stribllnr and Bailey together. Met Henry
and Striking again at night at the Pa
cifc hotel. They there told him that
Pierce would pay the state slo,ooe Of
$4,000 ana pay them an extra fee. Hsd
5srIiped 10 azee to this. Refused 10
compromise at all on the extra fee basis.
said he thought So. 600 would not be an
tnreae 0nsble amount for Pierce 20 pay
That settled the matter and the negotia-
tlons we're declared on.
saw Mr Bailey in the afternoon only.
Never had any conference With him on
the subject after that. On the day after
the second Waters Pierce company had
secured readmission 70 the state, SIR
Pierce accomp MED By his attoriey, Dir.
Johnson visited Waco and made : sec
ond effort TO settle. Hr. Pierce stated
that be was a little surprised that the
matter could not be adjusted. as Mr.
Bailey had told him that the McLennsn
county civil cases could be settled u
settlement was effected With the STATE.
He fThomas) replied that be did not
know By what authority Bailey spoke. as
be had never seen on conferred with him
since his visit to Waco IN June, Judge
Scott stated that be had said that ne
would approve any settlement the At
tornsys might agree upon, bat w5ald not
agree 20 dismissal OF she criminal cases
A plea OF Intervention had been aled 10
the civil cases last November and sus-
tanned and the cases dismissed, but the
criminal cases were still pending.
Replying to Mr. Lane. Ar Thomas SAID
that he knew OF no statute Droh.1itIng
enc receipt Of additional compensation by
couneel employed by county attorneys 20
prosecute STATE cases, hi. thought Il
contrary 10 professional ethics for such
70 be paid or accepted. Henry and
stribling were employed under private
contract with his predecessor. Mr. ray-
Tor IN this case. So far ne fThom -
was concerned he had been offered moth
ing beyond his statutory 10 per cent.
Mr. Bailey suggested ihs;, as this mat
ter OF division OF fees was admittedly
one about which be knew nothing and
With which he had not been concerned IL
was hardly proper that It be proceeded
with
The matter was dropped and Mr. Lane
arked Mr.. Thomas N he knew OF any
facts tending 20 establish That the two
Waters-Pierce OIL companies are Msnti-
cal. He replied that hearssy VAS all t1al
he had TO rely on with regard thereto
Did not know that Mr. Pierce Was evel
trustee of the Standard OIL ,rait. Had
feen the agreement entered into Z.
form the Standard on trust. but the Of
hterp OF the Waters-Pierce company arl
not named therein, H7d not had tia,
20 take dispositions Of the officers Of N.
new Waters Pierce company 20 asctrfst
when and bow the stock Of the old an
new companies had been shlftei becaus
the demurrer IN the case sg1iust the oil
company had been sustained in McLen
nan county. Replying 10 Mr.. Little VT
Thomas stated that he knew OF o. ha
seen nothing al the time % the Wss
conference TO lead him 10 believe ina
Mr.. Bailey was acting dishonesty.
~
Cross-exsmined By Mr. Bailey. III
Thomas testified that Pierce has ap
peared at waco TO stand trial in tn
criminal cases against him and that til
eases hid been continued ~ notion
the State. also that IN all the oonyefs.
tons ne had had with Mr. nalioy sit
reference to the Waters-Pierce cases J
Bailey had always insisted mat n
st4te's interests must he preserved az
indicated.
Examined by Office Assistant Attorn
General Johnson Mr. Thomas taa-gIx
that re Rad never seen the a...ll.
charter Of 1852 OF the old waters Per
company until after talk OF comproniis
Cad arisen. Tee new charter i09s "a
show that any OF the Standard OF! pe
pc Interested in the company in Is
owned stock in the new company.
Chairman Hendrlck said ne Ia end
TO call on McFall during recess.
~
Hon. Barnett Gibbs was sworn ana 81
he knew nothing ON earth about tne "
Fsll charges except from political q
sip. HID had dealings with Mr.. odi
for fifteen years; some Of taem of 49,
date. Tpld OF his attempts TO sci! C
tain fancy" piece OF property he o'si
In Dallas county which ON different
casions he had tried to unload on G
ernor Taylor OF Tennessee. Senator C
bers0n and Others aad finally roN he a
asked Bailey to dispose OF 1t tor him
latter had interested himself IN the N
ter with the result that David r. Fr
els, whom he had known before Bl
ever became acquainted with MIN. eve
usily made an offer for it provided
could put in eersain West Texas il
holdings RS part consideration for
purchase. Finally the deal was elr
up, he getting $4,000 out OF H. and
heard no more OF the transaction u
IL became political Issue AMI for
the subject of discussion at iae "
convention. The trade which WAS Il
With Francis was agreed on last I
rasry, to his recollection Had n,
heard OF the aters-Pieree oil matte
that time ANA certainly never got
WatersAperce money All he got
some poor Pecos county land Francis
hold OF under the Roberts adm MIS-
4 tion fifteen years ago.
Recess until 1880 D. m.
After recess Chairman Hendrlck 81
to the committee that he had been
TO see Mr.. McFall and found him
feeble and unable TO come out and
McFall had said that II was unnecei
TO delay the proceedings on his ace
as he knew nothing that could swo
for the information of the commtte
Mr. Bailey then asked to be 81
and after taking the oath made his $
msnt 10 the committee. He starte
telling how. at the instance OF D
Franois he had become intereste
the waiers-Pierce matters. Mr.. l