Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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