The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-05-12
Court Takes Question of Habeas
Corpus for Oil Magnate
Under Amusement.
SHERIFF FROM TEXAS
IS WAITING FOR DECISION
Head of Waters-Pierce Oil Com
pany Is Charged With Max
ing False Affidayits.

ST LOUIS, May 11,-After hearing
arguments today in the United States
Circuit court concerning the habeas
corpus writ applied for By counsel rep
resenting H. Clay Pierce, chairman of
the board Of directors of the Waters
Pierce Oil company, to prevent hlm
| from being taken to Texas to answer
an Indictment charging Pierce with
an affidavit at Austin, Tex, in May,
1900, Federal Judge Adams late today
took the case under advisement until
May Is.
Sheriff G. s. Matthews of Austin sat
in the court room today ready to take
Pierce into custody and start for Texas
with him tonight in case Judge Adams
denied the writ
! Sheriff Was on Hand.
Sheriff Matthews of Travis county,
Texas, who arrive dyesterday to take
Pierce back to Texas TO answer to the
Indictment charging perjury, said prior
to the hearing this morning that il
| Pierce is turned over to his custody hs
would start TO Texas tonight.
When coutr convened Mr.. Pierce oe-
cupIed n seat between his lawyers,
Priest and Johnson, and was convers.
ing with Johnson when Sheriff Mat
thews came in. Johnson shook hands
with the Sheriff and turning, intro
duced hi INTO Pierce.
ooh, You re the Sheriff from Texasl
! mpleased to meet you, said Mr.,
hands with the Sheriff. ''sit down, =
added Mr.. Pierce, indicating chair
near by, and the Sheriff took the chair,
nothing more passing between the two,
Mr.. Priest opened by outlining tho
| 70 hI- IN
on May 81, 1900, and citing legal def.
nitions of perjury and false swearing.
He asserted that the defense would
show that fhe Texas Indictment was
based on alleged false swearing, and
that when all the facts connected with
the affidavit were demonstrated, IT
would be shown that Mr.. Pierce had
also contended that the affidavit was
made in Austin, Tex, two days after
the reorganization of the Waters-Pierce
Oil company, and that the company was
not a party to any pool, trust, combl:.
nation or confederation IN restraint on
trade that the company had been GUST
! cd from Texas upon the grounds OF the
violation of the laws. an dthis oath
was necessary for It's readmission.
No Federal Question.
After Attorney Priest had outlined
the defense, Judge Shepard Barclay OF
st. Louis, counsel representing the
State of Texas. told the court that he
had prepared n motion setting up, that
no Federal question had been developed
in Pierce's answer to Chief of Police
Creecv's return to the habeas corpus
proceeding and that this was not case
for Federal jurisdiction,
fSOur contentio nwill be, said
| Judge Barclay, ',that nothing has been
! deyeloped in this case that involves
Federal coguizance. The only ques'
tions raised are those for the courN
of Texas to consider. The treaty bs'
tween the United States and Texas
gives the Governor OF Missouri tne
right to deliver a prisoner TO the state
! of Texas independent of the Federal
! government,
Judge Priest began arguments III pe'
/ half Of Pierce by offering as exhibIts
copies of extradition papers honered by
/ Governor Folk aud of the indictment
/ returned by the Texas grand jury OF
Travis county, He took up the lndlet,
mcnt. section by section, and discussen
at length He declared that rs the
Waters-Pierce Oil company did not ex-
ist until MAY %, 1900, it was not pos
! sible for il 10 have entered into any
pool ro trust before that time.
Pool and Trust Charged,
The indictment charges that tho
company was in pool and trust from
January 81. 1900, to May 81, 1900. and
on every day during that time was en-
gagged in issuing trust certificates to
agents of the Standard Oil company.
Judge Priest declared that the charges
were reckless, were not made for tho
purpose of bringing the petitioner to
Justice but for some other purpose,
which be did not mention. He said the
Indictment showed by its construction
that either there had been no witnesses
examined by the grand jury or they
had not properly considered the mat
Ter.
Judge Priest declared that notwith..
standing the outside Literature OF
the day. there was ample law for tho
discharge of the prisoner by the court
lie contcndcd that the indictment wa:
more expression Of the opinion OF
the Texas grand Jury, He declared
there was ample precedent for the court
to exercise jurisdiction in this case and
inquire into the sufficiency o fthe in
dictmeut himself. that being the only
evidence GU which the prisoner was
held !