The Washington herald., 1906-12-07

! Austin, Tex, Dee 6-Senator ]. W.
/ Bailey tonight made public his answer
| to the charges contained in a letter of
/ Attorney General r. v Davidson, that
/ he had received money from the Waters
| Pierce Oil Company, which transactions
were Of record upon the books OF the oil
/ company
Mr.. Bailey says that he was never con-
suited about the dissolution Of the old
Waters-Pierce Oil Company and the re-
| organization Of the present company. In
relation to the vouchers which Attorney
| General Davidson cited in his open letter
as that Mr. Bailey had received money
from H. Clay Pierce on account OF the
/ Waters-Pierce Company. Mr.. Bailey says:
six years ago I stated under oath TO
/ the executive conn -stee that I had not
acted as attorney for the Waters-Pierce
Oil Company in the matter Of its COM
/ plications with the State. and I further
stated that had not accepted any COM
/ pensation for the recommendation for a
compromise which made to the attorney
| general
Got No Pay for Services.
For six weeks Immediately preceding
/ the last election delivered speeches in
/ this State, in almost every one Of which
repeated what I have said for six
/ years. and further declared that never
acted as an attorney for the Waters
| Pierce Oil Company in any matter or ac-
| cepted compensation for il. In these
| speeches, and at the same time, 1 de-
| clared that had represented II. Clay
| Pierce in many matters. and 1 had en-
! gagged in various business transactions
/ with him and for him. none Of which re-
/ lated in any manner to the business or af-
fairs Of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company or
the Standard OIL Company"
Continuing. Mr.. Bailey said:
! when H. Clay Pierce asked me to In
/ tercede with the attorney general on be-
/ half of his company and / agreed 10 do
so. he offered 10 pay me for the service.
| and I declined 20 receive payment upon
the ground that the service which I in
tended TO render was friendly and not a
/ legal one, and was not. therefore, such
! service as a lawyer with my view OF his
| profession would take payment for per-
| forming.
Practfced Law, Not influence.
/ He asked me If ! was not a lawyer.
and I told him that was, but that
was one Of the kind who practiced law
and not influence told him, however.
/ that I was then on my way 10 Kentucky
/ for the purpose Of selling some horses 10
raise a sum of money that I needed. but
/ that in view Of 4 political situation which
would bring me back TO Texas. and which
1 had already explained TO him. I told
/ him that : would speak to the attorney
/ general while here.
/ Il might have time 10 dispose of the
horses while in Kentucky, and that he
would be willing 10 take my obligation
and allow me to pay it with interest I
would consider a loan of $500 as favor.
! He loaned me the money and I repaid
! every dollar of it 10 him as soon as I
! sold the horses. which 1 did soon after
! Congress adjourned that summer
| Z borrowed that money purely as a per-
! sonal transaction between him and my
/ self. as the voucher. which ! understand
was stolen from his papers, and IS now
in your possession. will show That vouch-
/ er not only shows that the transaction
was between Pierce and myself. but it
| expresses on the face of it that the money
| was received as a demand loan An idiot
| knows better than 10 believe that man
| gives evidence of Indebtedness when he is
| collecting a debt"
Explains $3.50 Item.
Replying to Attorney General Davidson's
charge that Mr.. Bailey wrote a letter to
! II. c Pierce on March 2S, 1901. in re-
| sponse TO which he received New York
exchange for N.75o, which sum was
| charged on the books Of the Waters
| Pierce Oil Company as on Account Of
| Texas expenses" Mr.. Bailey says:
! I do not remember. of course, the date
of the letter which you ask if I wrote.
but l do know that I wrote H c. Pierce
letter requesting him TO send me s1.75O.
and also remember that received the
money at once. l also know that there
| is not syllable In that letter which indi-
Gates in the remotest degree that ths
S.150 had any relation 10 the Waters
Pierce Oil Company or its business.
Il know, furthermore, that the 81. $50
which / received then was a part Of a
| loan which I obtained from H. c. Pierce
something like three months before, and
the amount Of which I did not draw from
him in fun at the time
Replying to another question Of Attor-
ney General Davidson, Mr.. Bailey says:
Just before the adjournment OF Con-
gress, in the spring of 1901, I arranged
with H c. Pierce to borrow SSo00 which
1 expected TO need for several different
small transactions during the summer"
Note Was Paid in Full.
He says that he gave his note for the
amount, and that 1t has been paid in full
Continuing. Mr.. Bailey says:
Il have never had access TO the books
OF the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, and.
therefore, do not know what they con-
tained. but I do know that If they i'm
port that the Waters-Pierce Company
has paid any money TO me, directly or in
directly, every such entry is utterly and
wholly false. and my opinion is that If
such entry appear in these books the
man who made them. or who had them
made, simply robbed the Waters-Pierce
Oil Company.
such a proceeding on the part OF those
in charge of the books and papers OF that
company and of H. c. Pierce would
have been an easy one. For Instance, the
s. 900 note which 1 gave to II. c. Pierce,
and every dollar of which l paid could
have been taken by an employe OF that