Bryan morning eagle. [volume] (Bryan, Tex.) 1898-1909, 1907-02-23


morning session OF the legislative com
mittees. Bailey denied that he had
stated on the previous day eh had adj
mitted that the Standard Oh company
was Indifferent TO his pipe line amend
ment. Senator Elkins was opposing
me. and during the fight In the senate
from Independent concerns. Ifhe
said: standard OIL always hides be
hind socalled independent concerns. "
jenkins asked II independent con
Germs were building a pipe line from
Kansas through Indian Territory and
! Texas.
Il once thought the Waters Pierce
OIL company was an independent com.
pany. he replied. and I am not go
Ing 10 say what Is an independent any
more. Mr.. Jenkins. n you are trying
10 prove that the transportation
amendment was In favor OF the Stand
ard OIL company you are wasting your
time" said Bailey. IT is a waste OF
legislate against the independents.
jenkins continued 10 ask questions
about the transportation amendments.
IF the Standard on company want
ed TO build new pipe line. couldn't
they organize 4 separate company and
build itY"
Il think II would he true II Is
condition that would have To be regu.
lated by constitutional amendment
My transportation amendment was put
into the law. but there we're some
amendments OF lumber and oil compa-
MES that were excepted. The dena-
tured alcohol bill and the rate bill were
two measures that came before the
senate during the last few years. and
these we're measures In which the
Standard was interested"
Senator Bailey stated that the farm
er could not AFFORD TO make his own
denatured alcohol. The expectation
was that every man would not make
his own denatured alcohol because the
government could not AFFORD to put an
Inspector on every farm"
Bailey did not know that the Arto
Chemical company. subsidiary cor
poration OF the Standard oil company,
manufactured wood alcohol. and he did
not know that the Standard controlled
the supply OF benzoin. principal In
gredient OF denatured alcohol.
Il passsd through St Louis some
where near the time Governor Francis
made the payment to Pierce for me.
he said III might have been October
or September" One voucher was dat
ed Nov. 80. the day after the H,sOO
was paid
Bailey told further OF his connec-
ton with the Tennessee Construction
company. He said he knew nothing
as an expert about railroads beyond
his comomn sense TO tell good railroad
property when he saw II. He stated
that IL would not be modest for him 10
say how much greater his common
sense was than other peoples. He
said ut the time the Tennessee Central
was sold that the Illinois Central ana
Southern Railways were not In con
troll OF Standard OIL company. Bailey
denied that Pierce was Interested In
the Standard OIL company. but that
Standard OIL company was interested
In the awters-Pierce company. Wit.
ness said what made him FURIOUS
was that Standard OIL company owned
nm interest In the Waters-Pierce OH
company and also operated the Corsf
cana refinery at the time he gave
written opinion TO the Standard say
ing they could not come into Texas.
He explained that large corporations
often seeek an opinion OF some lawyer
In n state In which they wish TO OPP
crate. Bailey objected 10 some OF
these small lawyers intimating that
he was not n lawyer Of ability
was at the head OF my bar when was
twenty-five years old" he said. VI
think the Standard was acting In good
faith when II asked for my opinion. U
don't think II Is anybody's business
what my fee was In the Tennessee
Construction company matters" he
said. In making these charges they
have picked out my friends. from
whom ! haye borrowed money they
have omitted Jot Gunter." Here Bat
ley objected strongly To alleged meth
DDS OF the prosecution. In which u
was trying TO bring honorable men
here TO help convict a public servant.
II I had been the attorney general OF
this state would not have brought
suit first against the company of which
the Standard OIL company only owns
part and leave the companies of which
the Standard owns the whole. II II Is
true that the Standard owns the Secur
ny OIL company and the refinery at
Corsicana. I would have brought suit
against them FIRST. You have n nice
question OF law In the waters-Pierce
case. which Is: Can you destroy the
property Of minority stockholders
when Il Is found that majority stock
holders are illegalg would not have
made the other companies parties toI
the suit against the waters-Pierce. u
might have made the Corsicana Re
nnery and Security company party to|
the same suit. ! would not allow a
man who had committed perjury. al
man who was a moral idiot would
not allow him TO assist me in prosecut
ing a case. would make no deal
with him To help my suit" He claim
ed Gruets testimony Is not necessary
In this case.
Bailey explained his version OF Au.
ditor Naudian's testimony. He said
Naudain would not audit the sl.Sou
voucher without the draft until Grue'
had made a notation on the voucher
that the draft had been attached. The
only paper that ever denounced as
forgery was the purported Henry a
stribllng draft" said abbey. Il have
said there are interlineations In some