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

/ General Smith took the stand and upon
being sworn testified in effect as follows
3 MY physicisns have no. lei me nave
{ free access TO al tae literature concern
( ing this case but have general Know
! edge OF the resolution which prcusat
I about this .nYestlgation,
Continuing. Ar. smith related the facts
! connected with the waters Pierce ifuga-
ton ami said that be had advised the
secretary Of sOsde tina, under no circum-
atAnees would any proposition to grant
The company a new permit whie such
litigation was pending be entertained oy
me state Going into details, he tod
,rbss became OF the litigation before The
supreme court OF the United states and
said that scter the case mad finally beea
decided in favor Of ne state he had con-
suited with the Justices Of the court oil
civil appeals whether X would De proper
to give delendsnts reasonable time 10
adiust their business in tne ota.e ai,et
the receipt OF the mandate. II Wes de-
eidsd that this could he done without
trr1orog-lety and the lime was granted.
: The attorneys OF the company In the
meantime made many attempts 10 secure
a reIns;atem and offered to pay large
? peDslt!es herefor. but their overtures
I were destined The only time Mt BAILEY
, had apoken to him about it was when ne
iuciden,aliy stated that II there was any
! yay 20 rcinstate the county ne would DC
: Lad O have It shown consideration, as
q "A friend OF his had asked him TO help ~
out. He showed Mr.. Bailey the statet,
ana the Judgment of tae court ana thf'
a gentleman agreed with him tina, nothinH
= could be done along that line, and moth
Ing more was said about 1t to hlm oS
The confederation OF taking out Texa.
charter was discussed Win the repre-
= sentative of the company, but finally the
ba with a claTtGT
although bearing The Same name ~
authority was found 70 prohibit the use
of this name. neither was anything found
-. In the statutes 20 prevent the srant4n'
~ cf a permit to tls new corporation Mad'
- a trim to Jefferson CITY and examined ms
records and the laws Of Missouri an'
70 found that the new corpora ion had com
- piled with the statutes and that the rec
~ ord was all IN order. The new compan'
~ he'd complied with the antitrust law 0
- 1900. Had received some complaint
-. against the new corporation which wer
~ thoroughly investigated and foun
~ Froundlefs. All there was in any OF then
~. was that certain trade discounts wer
Nv granted in case OF purchases OF certal
~ quantities 81 oil One complainant ma
a, declared that he had been refused oil D
az the company but when questioned tn
gu locS agent OF the company asserted tina
70 he had never received an applleatton 70
We oil from the complainant. WHO had neve
ny returned 10 press his charge.
~
.sr Mir. Smith having concluded. MIR. Ian
to proposed thSt the committee invite 81
sa- pert legal opinion from any source as
whether there was fraud In the admits
sion OF the second Waters-Pierce com
az pany. Mr. Bailey protested against Thu
-"e II was not-a question Of law. but one
." honor with Attorney General smith an
"a himself, and they were entitled to
he clean-Out decision before another su
he set, as there WAS not a seinttlla OF ey
~, dence to fasten guilt upon them tn
A"e ques don of fraud was not tho one whit
ma concerned those who had urged the u
ate vestigaton. 1t was he they were att
IN. and AZ they had been unable to faste
M, any stain uyon him prompt decs'F
was due him,
iSh Mr.. Lane was willlns 10 divide Il
ot question. He had always believed IN
the thing farce and thought MI Bailey e.
the titled to what he asked, but since q
Mr. question OF fraud had been raised
and wanted more light on the law side
ean the case. At this stage Of the procee
ter ings the committee went into executi
tn session again.
70 Upon the return of the commit
cut AhdlFman hthAAitN AHhbN'iNe4 NA"N -
~ Investigation was concluded and pr
GER pounded the following question 10 ca
old member OF the committee separately a
a individually in open court; "From 7
ard testimony submitted. IS there any e'
,uia sence tending to show either a moral
aw legal wrong on the part OF Hon. J.
LEY Bailey, Hon. Thomas s, Smith or a
my other STATE ofAcial with regard to
amy admission Of the waters-rieree eonpa
Mi to do business In Texas May 81, 1902
'ney Each member as mis- neme was cal
nov answered No in clear. distincs vol
after which the chairman added his ~
tes- 70 the chorus and aPpslnse broke {
tive spontaneously in the large audieI
which wac present at the hearing.
-ney svbconmistee .wss-then appointed TO ~