Palestine daily herald. [volume] (Palestine, Tex.) 1902-1949, 1907-02-12

When Senator Bailey was given an
opportunity to see the original doeu-
ments and vouchers before the legisla-
ture he made a speech in his own de-
tense and used this language:
The next document presented is on
a piece of paper such as men would
hardly use in important transactions.
At the head of it is Stribling & Tay-
lor. It's rubbed out and then the
words Henry & Stribling written in.
Perhaps it was found that Taylor was
not in politics and 1t would not do to
charge this up to Stribling & Taylor,
so the name of Henry & Stribling was
rubbed out and the name of Henry &
Stribling written in. And then it says
Audited, H. H. Stein What is audit
ed? There is not the expediture of
dollar recited in that piece of paper,
which these men claim have been ap-
dited. Before a man audits and APP
proves there must be an expediture
recited, and yet there is not the ex-
penditure of one penny recited in that
document The next purports to be
Received of the Waters Pierce Oil
company $780, signed by H. c.
Pierce, and it is dated St Louis, Mo-,
June Is, voucher F-S6. No mention of
my name there; no mention, even, Of
Henry & Stribling The next is a tel
egram dated at Lake Nebagamon,
Wis, June IL. It does not say wheth-
er in 1901 or 1906-just June u with
out any year. That telegram reads,
If Johnson approves authorize Bailey
to loan Stribling on his note $500
Bailey should quiet all parties. Tell
him / will see him soon That tele-
gram, dated in Wisconsin on June u,
follows in sequence the way they are
filed. A st. Louis. receipt dated on
June Is. Now, whether that telegram
is forgery or not have no means of
knowing. 1t does not purport to have
come to me or to have been sent by
me, but this / do know: If anybody
represented to Pierce or to anybody
else connected with his company that
| was negotiating any loan or any set
Element or any payment to Stribling
or TO Stribling & Henry it was a
downright and palpable forgery. Now.
mark the difference: In this memo.
randum here it says, Henry G. Strib-
ling. Over in this telegram it drops
to Stribling alone, and then when
they present a voucher it is Henry G.
Stribling $500, but who signs It?
Draft attached Where is the
draft? Did they not steal all the 9th.
er papers? Why then did they not
steal the draft and make the record
complete? They have no proof to &C
count for the expenditure of the $500
except the draft because nobody sign
ed that receipt at the bottom; just a
notation, the draft is attached: and
yet, strange TO say, the draft has dis
appeared"
This $500 voucher bears a nota-
ton stating No %, 1900, draft at.
tached and delivered to H. C. Pierce
by Mr.. Gruet-'"
In the correspondence of Governor
Francis is found letter dated at ST
Louis November % addressed to H. C.
Pierce at st. Louis, reading as fol-
lows: Dear Sir enclose my per.
sonal check for $4,000 payable to your
order, in exchange for which please
send me by bearer ]. w. Bailey's re-
ceipt or due bill given for a like
amount / understand this to be the
total amount of Bailey's obligation to
you. II it is not so, please advise me.
Yours truly, David R. Francis"
On the same day Mr.. Francis wrote
letter to Mr.. Bailey saying that he
that day had paid Mr.. Pierce $500
and asked for exchange therefor. The
letter says: MY letter also stated
my impression was that $4,000 was the
extent of your obligation to him. but
requested that he advise me If they
were in excess Of that amount He
made no reply to my letter other than
to send me the enclosed which I for.
ward to you. the same being your re-
ceipt of April 25, 1900, for $4,000. which
the voucher designates as a demand
loan, and your sight draft on him
dated Gainesville. Texas. June IL
1900, for $780,"
The voucher of the Waters Pierce
Oil company was dated June Is. The
demand loan was dated at Gainesville.
Texas, June 10.