The weekly herald. [volume] (Amarillo, Tex.) 1906-19??, 1908-04-30

McFall into the legislature de-
nounced the readmsslon OF this com
pany as fraud upon the laws OF
Texas and declared the permit void
Senator Bailey knew that this was a
political move by the enemies OF him.
self and Attorney General Smith, and
that the only thing sought or that
could be accomplished by the pas
sage OF the bin was a legislative de-
claration that the roadmission OF the
company was fraud, Senator Bailey
knew, and every lawyer knows, that
The only way by which It could be le-
yally determined that the readmis-
sion OF the company was fraud was
through the courts OF the country,
and not by legislative enactment. He
knew, and every we'll informed law
yer knows, that the McFall bill H.
self was a fraud and was intended
to accomplish nothing but reflec-
ton upon Senator Bailey and Tom
smith, and therefore Bailey returned
to Texas in March, 1901, and boldly
declared the fact that he was opposed
to This bill because Il was intended
as thrust at him and was not in.
tended to cancel the permit OF the
oil company.
Subsequent events have developed
the fact that at the time Bailey ad-
vlsed the compromise OF the cases at
Waco and Austin, the Standard Oil
company owned a majority OF the
stock OF the Waters Pierce OIL COM
pany. Did Bailey know these facts
at the time he advised the comprom-
Use? The evidence shows he did not,
Picrcc's Deception.
Pierce told Bailey it was an indie
pendent concern. Bob Henry told
Senator Bailey at Waco that he
thought the Waters Pierce Oil COM
pany was a party to the Standard Oil
agreement, and submitted to Bailey
copy of that agreement, Bailey eX-
amined this copy and found TO his
satisfaction that the agreement did
not evidence trust but proved to
the contrary. The Judge who tried
the case Of the state against the COM
pany at Austin instructed the jury
that there was not sufficient evidence
to establish the fact that the Waters
Pierce Oil company was party to
tht Standard Oil agreement and 10
ignore that issue altogether in their
elaboration. This charge | exam
ined myself at Austin and know that
the judge so instructed the jury.
The only issue submitted TO the jury
in that case was as 70 whether or
not the company had made exclusive
contracts in the state Of Texas and
tho jury found against the company
upon this issue, and this alone. SEN
ator Bailey swore that he did not
know that the Standard Oil company
owned stock in the Waters Pierce Oil
company or that the Waters Pierce
was trust, but that he believed II
was an Independent concern.
1t is contended by those opposed to
Senator Bailey that the records of
the Waters Pierce Oil company and
the vouchers introduced in evidence
in the investigation last had in Aus
tin shown concluslvely that Senator
Bailey received from the company
$4,000 April 25, 1900, $500 June
10, 1900, $4,000 March /, 1901, and
sl,75O March 2S,19O1. 1t is true
also that that books OF the company
introduced in evidence showed that
these vouchers had been regularly
entered upon the books OF the COM
pany. Both the vouchers and the
books evidence the fact that Pierce
had paid Bailey these sums of money
the item of $4,000 and the item
Of $4,000 as loans and the other
two items as expenses, and the
vouchers and the books show that
Pierce had received from the COM
pany these several amounts OF
money. The books further show that
Pierce never at any time repaid these
sums of money to the company, and
that all these sums we're ultimately
charged to profit and loss.
Bailey Not Responsible.
While these are the facts as they
appear from the vouchers and the
books assert that no court in Chris
tendon would have admitted either
the vouchers or the books as evil
dence against senator Bailey because
there was no evidence before the
committee that Senator Bailey ever
borrowed this money from the com