Newspaper Page Text
6
The Plain Story of a Great Wrong
It is apparent from Senator Bailey’s
public addresses that he is not at all
meeting the issue which has been
made against him, but instead is set
ting up issues of his own making,
and, with a show of boldness, is smash
ing them to smithereens. He is tell
ing the people that he is being lied
upon, and that his critics deny that he
has a right to practice law, or to bor
row money, or to withhold from the
public a complete statement of his pri
vate business transactions. Os course,
when he can make people believe that
these are the contentions of his crit
ics he has such people won to his
side; for the alleged contentions are
themselves absurd.
The News has said that it does not
believe Senator Bailey should be re
turned to the senate. It has been par
ticular to add that it based this conclu
sion upon Senator Bailey’s own confes
sion, written by him, signed by him,
and given to the public, after three
days of travail, through the press, af
ter Attorney General Davidson had
confronted him with a knowledge
that he possessed the evidence. Sena
tor Bailey can not complain that The
News uses Senator Bailey as a wit
ness against himself. Nor can he com
plain because, since he.fails to do it
himself in his public addresses, The
News will there review his own state
ments in proper sequence and in prop
er setting, thereby showing, in spite
of his efforts to conceal it, just what
the issue is.
During the ’9os there was a great
outcry in Texas against the trusts. It
is a matter of political history that
such outcry was directed first of all
against what was termed “the Stand
ard Oil trust.” The Waters-Pierce Oil
Company was popularly supposed to be
a part of said trust and to pursue its
methods. The then Attorney General
(Crane) filed suit to oust the Wa
ters-Pierce Company from the state.
The petition was a drag net. It al
leged that the Waters-Pierce Company
had violated the anti-trust law in many
ways. One charge was that it was a
part of the Standard Oil Company; an
other that it had made exclusive con
tracts at various points in the state.
The state proved its allegations con
cerning the exclusive contracts, and,
as was subsequently shown, that was
sufficient for its purpose. Whether or
not the Attorney General was unable
to secure the proof that the Waters-
Pierce Company was a part of the
Standard Oil Company, or considered it
unnecessary to do so, The News is not
advised. The state was awarded a
judgment ousting the Waters-Pierce
Company, because it had violated the
anti-trust law by making exclusive con
tracts. That was the reason for the
ouster of the Waters-Pierce Oil Com
pany, so far as the courts were con
cerned. The popular reason for its
exclusion was that it was believed to
be the Standard Oil Company in dis
guise, and it was convicted of pur
suing the Standard Oil methods.
In May, 1900, the victory of the state
was rendered barren. The Waters-
Pierce Oil Company, against which
judgment had been rendered, went
through the form of dissolution. A
charter was filed under the laws of
Missouri for a new company of the
same name, which took over the prop
erty of the old company and went
ahead with its business. This new
company filed application at Austin
for a permit to do business in Texas,
and this permit was granted.
• • •
There were mutterings of popular
discontent because of this palpable
evasion of the law and the judgment of
the court of last resort. The mutter*
ings broke Into a storm almost of rage
when former Gov. Hogg, attending the
meeting of the Texas Bar Association
at Galveston, denounced the reorgan
ization of the Waters-Pierce Oil Com
pany and Its readmission as a fraud,
whereby a merciless trust was again
permitted to fasten its tentacles upon
the people of Texas, exacting exhorbi
tant prices from the masses who used
oil, crushing competitors and destroy
ing business men who declined to do
its bidding. The disclosure that Con
gressman Bailey, at that time the
Democratic nominee for the United
States senate, had in some way been
connected with the proceedings where
by the victory of the state had been
nullified, intensified feeling upon the
subject. A memorable debate follow
ed at the state Democratic convention
held that year In Waco. In this debate
Gov. Hogg again denounced the re
admission of the oil company as a
“fraud.” Mr. Bailey, upon the other
hand, defended it, declaring that the
Wa,ters-Pierce Oil Company was a le
gitimate trading corporation, and that
he was proud that he had been instru
mental in bringing it to the state “with
clean hands and a promise to obey
the law.”
When the legislature which was to
elect a United States senator met in
January, 1901, Representative David
A. McFall introduced a resolution de
claring that the readmission of said
company was a fraud, and that Mr.
Bailey, a candidate for United States
senator, had assisted in that fraud, and
providing for an investigation before
balloting for United States senator.
Senator Bailey’s friends offered a sub
stitute for the resolution. This substi
tute was adopted, and under it an
investigation was held. The substi
tute in the main was the same as
the original. Wherever it had been
written by McFall “It is charged,”
the substitute was made to read “It
is charged by D. A. McFall.” There
fore, when the speaker appointed the
investigation committee he left McFall
off, upon the ground that he was the
“prosecutor,” and therefore could not
be a juror. Hon. John R. Smith, who
was a member of that legislature, in
a recent communication to The News,
says that the only difference between
the original resolution and the substi
tute was made by the insertion of the
words “by D. A. McFall,” as above not
ed. Mr. Smith is mistaken. Another
and vital change was made. McFall’s
resolution gave the committee author
ity to have depositions taken. The
substitute contained no such provis
ion. Therefore, when it was suggest
ed in the committee that depositions
be taken touching the ownership of
stock in the Waters-Pierce Oil Com
pany it was ascertained that the com
mittee was without authority. Hence,
the Investigation closed with the ex
amination of a few Texas witnesses,
among the number being Mr. Bailey
himself.
Mr. Bailey testified that, after con
cluding his campaign for the United
States senate, and after Senator Chil
ton had withdrawn from the race he
started back to Washington; that at
Parsons, Kan., he received a telegram
from a friend advising him that there
was a conspiracy on foot to pass an
expansion plank in the Texas state
convention and to keep his friends
from being chosen as delegates to the
national Democratic convention; that
he telegraphed back for confirmation,
and that, when he reached St. Louis
he received a telegram confirming the
previous report, and that he decided
to return to Texas. He went on to
say that, while at St. Louis H. 0.
Piero* brought bln » letter ot Intro-
THE WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN.
duction from his friend, David R. Fran
cis, saying that Pierce had some
trouble in Texas; that he (Francis)
knew nothing of the matter, but he
(Bailey) could rely upon the word of
Mr. Pierce; that Pierce told him of
the judgment against the Waters-
Pierce Company, and the intention of
the Texas authorities to execute such
judgment; that he (Bailey) told Pierce
that Texas would not tolerate the
methods of the Standard Oil Com
pany, whereupon Pierce assured him
that the Waters-Pierce Oil Company
was an independent corporation, and
showed him that the trial court had
withdrawn that allegation from the ju
ry, and that judgment was rendered
because of proof that the Waters-
Pierce Oil Company had made exclu
sive contracts. Then, as Mr. Bailey
testified, he told Pierce that if such
was the case there should be no troub
le in adjusting the matter, as the Tex
as authorities were fair and honorable
men, and he promised to speak to
them about it. Mr. Pierce offered him
a fee, Mr. Bailey testified, but he de
clined it. “Are you not a lawyer?”
asked Pierce. “Yes, but lam one of
those lawyers who practice law, not
influence,” was the reply, as testified
to by Mr. Bailey. He testified no fur
ther concerning that conversation with
Pierce. t
• * •
In his further testimony he said
that he returned to Texas, called upon
Attorney Geenral Smith and advised
him to compromise with the Waters-
Pierce Oil Company, exacting a penal
ty to vindicate the law, but when the
Attorney General Smith and advised
calling attention to the judgment that
a compromise was Impossible, he
declared that Smith was right, and,
turning to Pierce, said: “The only
thing you can do is to organize a
new corporation, come into the state
with clean hands and obey the law.”
Then, he said, he went back to Wash
ington, and that he had nothing fur
ther to do with the matter, but ac
cepted responsibility for it; in fact, was
proud that he had been instrumental
in keeping a legitimate business enter
prise in the state. Denying that he
had received a fee, he declared that
he would not have hesitated to take
a fee from the Waters-Pierce Oil
Company for legal services.
It had been rumored and charged
that Mr. Bailey received the Grape
vine ranch as a fee for his interces
sion in behalf of the Waters-Pierce
Oil Company. In response to this
charge he testified at length, telling
how the money had been raised to
make the payment on the ranch. He
showed the sales of crops and live
stock, whereby a portion of the mon
ey was raised, and also showed that
$4,000 of the amount was paid by a
check on the Red River National Bank
of Gainesville.
The investigating committee made
a report, exonerating Mr. Bailey. He
was elected to the United States sen
ate, where he grew in distinction.
Many people still believed that the
Waters-Pierce Oil Company was a ten
tacle of the Standard Oil Company,
but in time most people apparently
came to believe that Senator Bailey
had Innocently blundered through an
exaggerated sense of loyalty to his
friend Francis, and he achieved a pop
ularity such as few public men have
enjoyed.
In July, 1905, press dispatches ap
peared, stating that Senator Bailey had
accepted employment to look after the
Interests of H. C. Pierce and other
St. Louis capitalists in Tennessee rail
road property.
In March, 1906, the attomeyi ot the
Standard Oil Company admitted, after
Rockefeller, Rogers and Pierce had been
dodging process servers for months
that the Standard Oil Company own
ed 68% per cent of the stock of the
Waters-Pierce Oil Company. This was
in the Missouri proceeding. They did
not say when this stock had been ac
quired. Attorney General Davidson of
Texas promptly announced that he
would bring suit against that company
as soon as duties in other important
cases would permit. So the report
passed without popular excitement.
• • ♦
In September, 1906, Pierce testified
In a Missouri case against the oil com
panies. Among other things, he ad
mitted that when the new Waters-
Pierce Oil Company was organigzed
all of the stock except four shares
was put in his name, but it was under
stood that 68% per cent of said stock
would subsequently be delivered to
some person to be indicated by the
Standard Oil Company; that the stock
was so delivered, and still later the
Standard Oil Company had it trans
ferred (taken out of his name), and
that all the time the dividends on this
stock were remitted to the headquar
ters of the Standard Oil Company in
New York.
In the same month Mr. Pierce testi
fied in another proceeding, wherein
he told in some detail of Senator Bai
ley’s employment in the Tennessee
matters.
Based upon this testimony, a new at
tack was made upon Senator Bailey
in Texas. He returned from Washing
ton, issued a statement to the press
and made many public addresses de
fending himself. He declared that at
the time he had offered to speak to
Attorney General Smith in behalf of
the Waters-Pierce Oil Company he be
lieved that company to be a legitimate
trading corporation, hence he arued
that he ought not to be blamed. Then,
as to the Tennessee employment, he
denied that the Standard Oil Company
had any Interest in it, and asserted
that he represented H. C. Pierce and
other citizens of St. Louis personally,
and that it was a perfectly legitimate
employment. He said that he had had
dealings with Pierce personally before
he knew that Pierce’s oil company , was
a part of the Standard Oil Company,
but none since that time.
In these public addresses Mr. Bailey
told of that stop in St. Louis in 1900
and of his first meeting and conver
sation with Pierce, just as he told it
on the witness stand six years before.
He always concluded with the state
ment that he told Pierce that he “prac
ticed law, not influence,” leaving the
impression that that was the last of
the conversation, and that there was
nothing else to tell, remotely bearing
upon the subject under discussion.
During the progress of Senator Bai
ley’s campaign he was asked by Cullen
F. Thomas to explain why, when he
determined to return to Texas on the
political matter, he remained In St.
Louis about a week, according to the
newspaper reports of his movements.
In reply Senator Bailey said in his
speeches, to the best of his recollec
tion he arrived in St. Louis on April
25, 1900, and that he returned at once
to Texas, but If he did not immediate
ly return, it must have been that he
went to Kentucky “£b SEE those
horses that you’ve heard so much
about.”
In November of the present year
Attorney General Davidson served not
ice upon the attorneys of the Waters-
Pierce Oil Company, demanding that
they produce upon the trial of the case
of the state agalast >a!4 company tor