The Calumet news. [volume] (Calumet, Mich.) 1907-1938, 1909-11-23
TRIAL OF OIL
MACNATE NEAR
Aenry Clay Pierce Will Be Tried
Next Week on the Charge
of Perjury.
NO FURTHER DELAY EXPECTED
Former Head of Waters Pierce Oil
Company swore That His Company
Had No Connection With the STAN
dard oil-Defendant Has Made Great
Fight to Escape Going to Trial.

Austin, Texas. Nov. 23.-Henry Clay
Pierce, millionaire and former head OF
the Waters-Pierce oil Company, will
be placed on trial here next week on
charge of perjury in swearing that
his company had no connection with
the Standard Oil Company and had
not entered into conspiracy with that
company in restraint OF trade Dis
trict Attorney James r. Hamilton an
nounced today the completion of all
arrangements for the trial, and II Is
not believed the State will consent TO
any further delay in the case. The
district attorney will be assisted in
the prosecution by Judge w. p. Nc
Lean of Fort Worth. whom Gov. Camp
bell has named as special counsel in
the case.
Notable Legal Contest.
The fight of Henry Clay Pierce to
escape trial has been the most notable
legal contest of its kind in the court
annals of America. IL is now just
three years since the oil magnate was
indicted by the grand jury OF Travis
-
swearing, following a suit brought by
the State against the Waters Pierce
Oil company. Mr.. Pierce was located
in New York the next spring by a
Texas sheriff, but fought extradition
in the Federal Circuit Court in New
York on the ground that the prosecu-
tion of Pierce in Texas was not i'm
good faith. but that Pierce had been
indicted for an ulterior purpose, and
If he were taken to Texas this fact
would develop. Judge Priest, who de-
Tended Pierce, introduced as evidence
Supreme Court opinion that the
Federal courts may take judicial no.
tice of the laws or all states; the
Texas antitrust law of 1899; and
parts of the Texas criminal code COW
ering perjury and false swearing
Later Pierce made an application for
writ of habeas corpus before Judge
Adams in the United States Circuit
Court at st. Louis. Judge Adams de-
MED the application and the case was
appealed TO the Supreme Court of the
United States, which on June 1 last
affirmed the decision of the United
States Circuit Court, holding Pierce
subject to extradition to Texas.
Mr.. Pieree's Testimony.
The testimony on which the indict-
ment of Pierce was based was given N
st. Louis in the proceedings brought
by Attorney General Hadley of Mis-
souri, in 1906 in the action brought by
the State OF Missouri to drive the
Standard Oil company from that
commonwealth. At that hearing Mr..
Pierce testified that he had been pres
ident of the Waters-Pierce Oil COM
pany since 1878, and that up to the
time when the company was reorganiz-
ed and practical control of il passed
TO the Standard oil Company the
company made a profit of from 500 to
200 per cent. year. It did large
business in Texas An inexperienced
agent he said, had made an agree
ment with the Standard oil company
in Texas i'm 1900, which resulted in
the expulsion of the Waters-P Pierce
from that state. He himself
went to Texas and was informed that
no company with aniliation with the
Standard could do business in that
state. This was explained to the Stan
dard oil people and led to a reorgan-
ization of the Waters-Pierce COM
pany. Up to May 20 1900. Mr.. Pierce
testified he had 100 per cent. OF his
stock. Then he trans
ferred 655 per cent of the stock to
IAN unknown party" representing the
oil company. 1t was agreed
that the name of the Standard as the
owner of the majority of the company's
stock should not appear on the books
Of the company.
Contradictory Statements.
The statements made by Mr.. Pierce
in the Missouri proceedings were In
direct contradiction to the statements
he is alleged to have made when his
made application to do busi-
ness in Texas, on which occasion he
swore that the Waters Pierce COM
Dany was not affiliated with the STAN
lard Oil company and had not entered
INTO any agreement with the last-nam-
ID corporation in violation OF the
anti-trust law of Texas.
The Texas criminal code defines per-
Jury as a false statement. written or
verbal deliberately and wilfully made
under the sanction of an oath. False
swearing Is defined as deliberately or
wilfully making false statement not
required by oath. Perjury under the
Texas law is punishable by imprison-
ment in the penitentiary for term
cf not less than FIVE years. The min
imum punishment for false swearing is
imprisonment for two years