Palestine daily herald. [volume] (Palestine, Tex.) 1902-1949, 1907-11-06


was the Waters Pierce Oil company
and if l ever said anywhere, or at any
time, or to anybody, that would
never be interested in a case against
the Standard Oil company
Q. Here is the question here:
You statement was based on the prop
osition that suit against the Waters
Pierce Oil company would be a simple
proceeding and easily handled? A.
Absolutely.
| Q. Did you have any interest in the
Standard Oil company? A. None
whatever.
Q. Did you have any desire to pro-
tect the Standard Oil company? A.
None whatever.
Q. But you thought by suing the
Standard Oil company and the Waters
Pierce Oil company in the same suit
that complications would result TO
prevent successful conclusion? A.
That was my purpose; that is exactly
my thought
Q. Now, you knew that the Stand
ard Oil company was interested in
the Waters Pierce Oil company. didn't
you? A. | did.
Q. You knew what its interest was?
A did.
O. And in suing the Waters Pierce
Oil company, or becoming a party to
that suit, you knew you were attack
ing the Standard to the extent OF its
interest in the Waters Pierce Oil com
pany? A. Absolutely; l knew it.
Re-examined by Mr.. Odell:
Q. You knew the Standard Oil COM
pany was fighting the Waters Pierce
Oil company, didn't you?
A. | do not know whether they
were fighting the Waters Pierce OIL
company in the senes that you infer
it. 1 knew they were the majority
stockholders in the Waters Pierce Oil
company.
Q. Didn't you know that they were
fighting Pierce?
A. Why, knew there was some
difference between Mr.. Pierce and
them
Q. You are not lawyer, are you
A. l am not
when you said to LiPhtfaOt that you
would not have anything to do with It
if the Standard Oil company was to
be brought into II. 20 dictate the law
policy of the case. were you?
A. was not, sir; | have explained
my motive fully.
Q. You have stated it, have you?
A. have stated that | thought the
coupling OF the Standard Oil company
in the suit against the Waters Pierce
Oil company would complicate maj
ters, so that it would make It diff
cult That was my opinion only.
Q. And that you would not have
anything to do with it if it was
brought in?
A. No, sir, I would not have any
thing to do with.
Q. If the Standard Oil COMPANY
was brought in?
A. Yes, sir.
O. And you would not deliver over
your papers and documents if the
Standard Oil company was brought
in?
A. Why, the assertion that l would
have nothing to do with 1.-THE one
implied the other. didn't it?
Q. And Lightfoot agreed to it, |
didn't he?
A. He didn't make any objection
to it.
1t is therefore obvious to anyone
that the senator grossly misstated the |
facts when he declared in his Abilene |
speech that Davidson had agreed not
to sue the Standard OIL company in
order to obtain Gruetts testimony
But Davidson says that notwith-
standing the fact that Senator Bailey |
declares he has no personal Inowl |
edge of the Standard Oil companys |
operations in Texas he will have the |
senator called as a witness for the
state, and intimates that the senator
knows more than he has yet been in
duced 10 tell.
In this connection he recalls that
before the investigating committee
last winter Senator Bailey testified
that for $500 the Standard Oil com.
pany had employed him TO advise
them as to whether or not they could
do business in Texas. and that he adj
vised them that they could not; that
for $4,000, S. C. Bayne, a
OF the Standard Oh company.
had employed him to draw the charter
and mortgage and superintend the
first meeting OF the board Of directors !
Of the Security oil company. Con