The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1907-10-29
BAILEY TO DAVIDSON.
Evidence Referred to Is Court
Record at Austin.

Dallas. OCt 29-1n his reply to ri
| torney General Davidson Senator Bai
| lev refers hat state official to the
| testimony of II. c. Pierce and Federal
action for evidence against the Stand
ard Oil company in Texas. Referring
to his remarks at the Dallas banquet
| to Governor Campbell. the senator
says: you were present and heard
what | said, and you must, therefore,
know with absolute certainty that
did not pretend to any personal knowl-
edge which would quality me as
witness in any court. | distinctly stat
ed that the proof which | could fur
nish is a part of The official records o.
q Texas court
Senator Bailey states that before
the attorney general instituted suit
against the Whters-Pierce Oil Compa-
ny Fl. c. Pierce testified before a Mis-
sCuri commissioner that his company
purchased oil from the Standard Oil
company. and that certain Texas cor.
pOrations. which he named, deliverea
W HIS tO1lDdil Tue WIZ u
it made from the Standard Oil com
pany. ct would be unreasonable
suppose that you did not keep yoTs
fully posted and accurately adv
of the testimony given in that N
souri, case; but If you say you did n
know of Pierces testimony, then ~
cannot be heard to say that you
not know of it now, because the tes
timony given by Pierce in the NJ s.
souri, case was received under stipua
ton as evidence in the case whic
you brought against the Waters-Pierc
Oil company, and is part of the rec
ord in the very case which you a" d
your associates tried at Austin. That
testimony is on file in the district
clerks office at Austin, and on pags
119 of Pierce's testimony you will find
the following:
"Question-'Why haven't you estab
lished refineries in Texas, them?
Because the Waters
Pierce Oil company was not prepared
to establish refineries. 1t had no ia
cilities for doing so. and it was receiv-
ing its refined product from the Stand
ard Oil company promptly and of good
quality. and in way to enable it
to care for all of the business that
/ thought it advisable for the Waters
Pierce Gil company to engage in; and
other people than the Standard Oil
company as well as the Standard III
company. were refining oil in the state
of Texas, and the Waters-Pierce Oil
company had taken from the Stand
ard Oil company products of the re-
finery at Corsicana and all the prod
ucts of the Security Oil company i'll
Texas, and there was no occasion for
the Waters-Pierce Oil company to &C
into the refining business and invest
capital when it could procure oil moe
cbeaply from them.'-Pierce's testimc.
ny, Sept 10, 1906, Texas case. filed
Sept. %. 1906.
IT is inconceiyable that with this
evidence before you, given by man
whom you charge with being a part
of the Standard Oil company. you
should go to New York or elsewhere
for further evidence to warrant the in
sttution of a suit
The senator further says: with |
the evidence of the Standard Oil com.
pany's operators in this state before
tute proceedings against it.
Il have never heard any reason Civ, |
EN- for this, except the statement of
Gruet, who said. under oath, that be
fore you brought suit against the |
Waters-Pierce Oil company your de,
partment had made an agreement with
him that it would not bring suit
against the Standard Oil company"
Continuing, Senator Bailey says Cru.
cts testimony to this effect was given |
under oath in the capitol at Austin,
and that no one took the stand to
contradict it.
In conclusion, he says: THAT you
have sued a corporation of which the
Standard Oil company was only part
owner. and at the same time exempt |
from suit corporations, can never be
satisfactorily explained to the people |
Of this state. and they will believe, |
as they have a right to believe, that |
the Standard Oil company would have
continued it's immunity from prosecu.
ton except for my persistent call upon |
your department to sue it,