Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1909-01-19
Obscure County Attorney in
Texas Benefits From Oil
Decision
eAlLEY's EXPOSURE RECALLED
Senator Aided Company Just ousted by
Decision of United States Supreme
Court Waters-Pierce Company
Prosecuted Under Two statutes-
The Courts Reasoning.

w dSHlUSioI, Jan. Ig.--Ine supreme
court Of the United States In upholdina
the state of Texas in its determination
to Gust the Waters-Pierce Oil com.
pany from business participation III
that community made 1t possible for 6
certain county attorney In those parts
to collect cool million as his reward
for having started the suits against the
company in question and having giver
such suits the impetus which sent them
on to a successful conclusion
The supreme court affirmed the de-
cree of the state courts of Texas, i'm
posing aggregate fines of $1,6235O0 or
the Waters Pierce Oil compuny of st
Louis and ousting 1t from the state
The two statutes of Texas. forbiddine
monopolies and trade restraint com.
binations, We're the agents which
brought the oil concern to grief In tina,
territory.
One of these statutes provides that
the county attorney instituting the
suits under it shall be awarded 60 per
cent OF the fines collected. The supreme
court decision. accordingly. made John
w. Brady, county attorney of Travis
county, Texas, a rich man. the Waters
Pierce Oil company being the unwill-
ing donor. 1t Is understood that At
torney Brady, however. must divide
with Messrs. Gregory. Wallen 81 Bats
who were his assistant attorneys when
the cases against the oil company were
begun.
700 Per Cent Dividends Paid.
In rendering its opinion that the fine
Of over a million and half was not a
deprivation of property without due
process of law and that 1t was not eX-
cessive. the court set forth the fact
that the Waters Pierce concern was
a wealthy corporation paying 700 per
cent dividends on it's stock and could
therefore we'll stand the assessment.
This might be taken as an indication
of which way the supreme court might
have voted In the S29000.000 fine case
of the Standard Oil company had the
been fortunate enough to
find a legal avenue to get 1t before that
tribunal.
The court also sustained the action of
the Texas courts in the appointment of
Robert j. Eckhardt as receiver, and
thus decided against the company,
which sought to have sustained the ac-
ton of the federal court in appointing
c. b. Dorchester at the instance of the
The Waters-Pierce on company, ac-
cordng to the decision of the court
stands convicted OF having violated the
laws of the state of Texas every day
since May 81, 1900, when 1t was given
a permit to do business in the state,
thru conspiracy with the Standard Oil
of New Jersey to control the
oil business in Texas. 1t is convicted of
having suppressed competition and of
destroying other oil business in the
state by "unconscionable and unfair
means" Thru its Vaccinations the
price Of oil was maintained ait an ex-
orbitant figure. 1t is alleged that 50
per cent of the petroleum products of
Texas have been under the complete
control of this company.
Company Defended by Bailey.
This is the same concern for which
United States senator Joseph w. Bailey
IF Texas pleaded before the attorney
of that state few years ago,
when 1t was decided to GUST it from the
state From his statements that the
Oil company had no
whatever with the Standard
Dill company and that 1t was in no
manner controlled by that concern. the
attorney general at one time formed
he opinion that he was ON the trail of
In innocent corporation.
Then came the exposure Of Bailey by