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

ator Bailey swore that April 20,lBOO'|
Pierce agreed to loan him as much
as $4,000. That on that day he ad-
vaneed him $4,000 and took Bailey'a
due bill for the amount, and that
June 10 OF the same year he drew a
draft upon Pierce for $500, asgre-
gatlns $4,000. lie also swore that
about March I, 1901, no borrowed
from Pierce the sum OF $4,000 and
executed his note due in four months
for the amount, but received only
o part Of Il In cash. and March 20
drew upon Pierce for Sl,70O as a
part OF the $4,000.
The prosecutors Of Bailey contend
that these several sums OF money
were paid to Bailey by tho Waters
Pierce Oil company as compensation
for his services In securing the read
mission OF the Waters Pierce on
company 10 Texas, On tho other
hand Senator Bailey contends that
he did not receive one cents COM
pensation for making the trip Ia
Texas and attempting TO comprom4
ise the cases at Waco and Austins
that he did so simply upon the res
quest OF d. r. Francis and thai
these sums OF money were borrowed
by him from Pierce individually and
were repaid by him 10 Pierce.
Personal Loans.
The prosecution contends that Baid
ley did not borrow these sums from
Pierce individually, that he received
them as a fee for the purpose stated
and that the note and the due bill
executed by him we're not intended
to be obligations, and that he mover
repaid any Of this money 10 Pierce
or the company. Now the propositloy
is plain one. Bailey either bor
rowed this money from Pierce and
repaid it or he received It from the
Waters Pierce Oil company as a fee
and as compensation for his services
in securing the readmlsslon OF that
company to Texas. IL he received
the money as fec and as compen-
sation rendered at the time, and to
be rendered in securing the read
mission OF the company to Texas
then IL follows as night the day, that
he Is the most corrupt man who ever
filled a public office In Texas or
walked upon shoe leather, because 10
that be true he has not only deceived
the people OF Texas but he has lied,
repeatedly lied and more than that
he has willfully and deliberately
sworn falsely and is guilty OF per-
jury under our law. On the other
hand II these were loans, and IL he
has repaid the money to Pierce then
1t follows with equal certainty that
he has been and is the worst abused
mistreated and slandered man who
has figured in public life.
Now what evidence have VIC that
these sums OF money we're advanced
10 Bailey by Pierce on behalf OF the
company or by the company as COM
pensation for his services? | answer
by the record and by all the facts in.
troduced upon the investigation that
there is not one particle of evidence
except the vouchers and the books
OF the company, and these are purely
hearsay statements in so far as Sem
ator Bailey is concerned. The vouch-
ers and the books simply show that
when Bailey received a dollar from
Pierce, Pierce in turn received 20
from the company, and when Bailey
repaid it Pierce put 1t in his pocket.
Did Bailey borrow the money from
Pierce?
The due bill Bailey executed Ia
Pierce April 25, 1000, evidences the
fact. The note Bailey executed TO
Pierce March 4, 1901, proves the
fact. The evidence of Governor
Francis TO the effect that Pierce told
him that Bailey would not accent q
fee but that he had loaned him some
money proves the fact. The sworn
testimony OF Senator Bailey estab-
fishes the fact beyond controversy.
Did Bailey repay TO Pierce this
money? II seems TO me that the
evidence of Governor Francis should
settle this question once and forever.
How any living man can doubt the
truth of the statement OF Governor
Francis on this question is past my
comprehension.
Testimony OF Francis.
Governor Francis swore before the
committee that by request of Senator
Bailey he paid to II. c. Pierce in st,
Louis, the sum OF $4,000 in satisfac-
ton OF the $1,000 draft of date June
10 1900 and tho "a 2a0 dino hilI ~