Newspaper Page Text
ouster •certain papers and books of
the oil company, announcing that if
they were not so produced the state
would offer secondary evidence. Some
of the books called for were records
of vouchers purporting to show that
H. C. Pierce had drawn from the treas
ury of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company
sums of money which he represented
he had paid to J. W. Bailey. The first
of these alleged vouchers purported
to show that Pierce had received from
the oil company $3,300 to reimburse
him for a loan of that amount claimed
to have been made by Pierce to J.
W. Bailey on April 25, 1900. This was
the very day of Bailey's first meeting
with Pierce. Vouchers for other simi
lar loans at later dates were called
for.
Mr. Bailey sent out a statement from
Washington denying that he had ever
received a cent from the Waters-
Pierce Company, and declaring that
if any one claimed to have vouchers
of that company signed by him he
would prosecute him for forgery.
• ♦ •
Attorney General Davidson replied
In an open letter, asking Senator Bai
ley if he had received these amounts
from H. C. Pierce.
Senator Bailey came back to Texas
and issued a signed statement, admit
ting that he had received the alleged
loans, but declared that he had receiv
ed them from Pierce personally, and
not from the oil company. In this
letter he for the first time disclosed
that he had not fully and fairly report
ed the first meeting between himself
and Pierce. He went over that story
as he did upon the witness stand six
years ago, and so many, many times
since then, telling how he (believing
that the Waters-Pierce Oil Company
was an independent and legitimate cor
poration) had offered to speak to the
Attorney General of Texas in its be
half; how Pierce offered him a fee;
how he declined; how Pierce had ask
ed him if he were not a lawyer, and
how he had answered, “Yes, but I am
one of those lawyers who practice
law, not influence.” That was the
absolute limit that Senator Bailey had
gone before. But in this letter he ac
knowledged that after he had told
Pierce that he “Practiced law, not
influence,” he added that he had in
tended to go to Kentucky to SELL
some horses to raise money that he
urgently needed, but he feared on ac
count of the necessity of returning to
Texas on a political mission, which
he had already mentioned, he would
not have time to sell the horses, and
if Pierce would loan him $3,300, tak
ing his note with Interest, he would
consider it a favor, and that Pierce
loaned him the money.
Now, Senator Bailey is not meeting
the issue here presented. He is not
relating these matters in sequence.
The published accounts of the speeches
show that he is relating the story of
his connection with the readmission of
the Waters-Pierce Company just as he
did six years ago, and asserting that
he ought not to be blamed because at
that time he believed the company to
be legitimate. Afterward, in a wholly
different connection, he says that he
borrowed money from Pierce, but fails
to mention that this first loan was
obtained upon his first meeting with
Pierce, nor does he tell any of the cir
cumstances. Instead, he makes it ap
pear that his critics are asserting that
a United States senator has no right
to borrow money at all, and he asks:
“In God’s name, is it a crime to borrow
money? If so, it would be Impossible
to get a quorum of the senate.” Then,
still carefully avoiding mention of the
date of the $3,300 loan, he asserts that
he did not conceal the fact that he
had borrowed money from Pierce, be
cause he had told the people in many
speeches during his recent fall cam
paign he had had many transaction#
with and for Pierce. He does not ac
count for the fact that he failed to
say even that much when he testi
fied under oath before the legislative
committee.
Mr. Bailey well knows that no one
has asserted that a United States sen
ator has no right to borrow money.
It is to the character of the banker
(?) and the circumstances surround
ing the loans that objection is made.
Mr. Bailey’s own testimony shows
that, when he met Pierce for the
first time on April 25, 1900, he, with the
rest of the people of Texas, believed
that the Waters-Pierce Oil Company
was a Standard Oil concern. But upon
the strength of a law report which
Pierce showed him, and upon Pierce’s
representations, he agreed to inter
cede with the Attorney General of
Texas. According to his testimony
and his many speeches, however, there
was a saving clause. He told Pierce
that if the matter stood as he had
stated it there should be no trouble
in getting the case compromised. Nev
ertheless, his own testimony further
shows that when he spoke to the At
torney General he found the case quite
different from what Pierce had repre
sented it to be, so much so that he
concurred in the opinion of Attorney
General Smith that a compromise was
out of the question.
• • •
But in the meantime, as we know
from Senator Bailey’s admissions,
forced out of him by Attorney General
Daviding, he had, with only that ex
parte hearing in St. Louis, dropped
the Texas belief that the Waters-
Pierce Oil Company was connected
with the Standard Oil, and, without
waiting to hear what the Attorney
General of Texas thought as concern
ed that company’s claim to legitima
cy, had borrowed $3,300 from the pres
ident of that outlawed company, said
president himself then being under in
dictment in Texas!
The News believes, in the first place,
that Senator Bailey, as a public serv
ant of Texas, had no right to butt into
a matter which was in the hands of
men chosen by the people of Texas
to look after It. If, as he told Mr.
Pierce, the Texas authorities were fair
and honorable men, what occasion was
there for him to Interfere? The com
pany had its attorneys. It believes, in
the second place, that he could not,
in good conscience, as an influential
public servant, accept a loan from a
fugitive from the justice of Texas,
from a man whom he believed when
he entered his presence was a trust
master, but whom he acquitted of that
suspicion to the point that he, a high
public servant, would accept such fa
vors of him before he left that room
and without hearing one word from
the side of his constituency. Accord
ing to his own statement he entered
..the room knowing very little about
the case against the company, but with
an opinion unfavorable to it; he left
the room with a favorable opinion, his
promise given to help the company,
and with $3,300 of Pierce’s money in
his pockets. The News considers that
Senator Bailey’s belief tn the legiti
macy of a corporation which had been
raiding his state for years was too eas
ily acquired to justify his acceptance
of the loan or his subsequent action.
He might not have known that the Wa
ters-Pierce OU Company was a tenta
cle of the Standard Oil, but he thought
so when he entered the room, and he
knew when he went out that the com
pany was an outlaw and its president
under indictment in Texas. He failed
in his duty to shun the appearance of
evil.
Senator Bailey suggests that If he
had concealed the fact of these pay
ments from Pierce to him it would
simply be a question of veracity. Not
so. The fact of concealment may be
Indicative ot tb* motive ot the »ot It-
THE WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN.
self. Senator Bailey has never shown
any good reason why he should have
concealed the fact that he borrowed
money from Pierce. If he regarded this
borrowing as an innocent and legiti
mate transaction, it is past believing
that he could have told the story of his
first meeting with Pierce scores and
scores of times, verbatim et literatim,
never once breaking over the line,
never even hinting that in that same
meeting he declined a fee, but accept
ed a loan. When in his speeches last
fall he attempted to account for the
week’s lost time that Mr. Thomas
asked about, his words skimmed the
very top of the rest of the story, and
yet he did not tell it. In these speech
es he said that if he did not return
to Texas “it must have been because
I went to Kentucky to SEE those
horses that you’ve heard so much
about.”
Nearly two months later, when an
swering the Attorney General’s ques
tion about the $3,300 loan, he disclos
es the fact that in that first meeting
with Pierce he declined a fee, but told
Pierce that had intended to go to
Kentucky to SELL some horses to
raise money, but feared he would not
have time to do so, and would consider
a loan a favor.
Why, when mentioning horses in his
speech and In connection with that
first interview with Pierce, did he say
“SEE” instead of “SELL”? Why,
when he got so near the reason for
borrowing the money, as he now re
lates it, did he fail to mention the
loan? Why did he fail to mention it,
unless with formed design to conceal
that most Important fact?
It Is not contended by anybody that
Senator Bailey had no right to borrow
money. It is contended that he bor
rowed it in the wrong place and un
der wrong conditions; that this initial
loan was but the starter of a long
string of such suspicious transactions,
and that, by reason ot pursuits and
associations, his views have become
perverted.
Senator Bailey points to his record
In congress. Suppose it were conced
ed that it is above reproach—what
then of the duties of congressmen
which are not of record? But suppose
it were conceded that all of these were
performed with perfection? What
would all this amount to if within his
own state he had used his high posi
tion and its great influence to nullify
a victory gained by this state, to fas
ten upon his own constituents a mer
ciless trust, which, notwithstanding
the fact that Texas now produces great
quantities of oil, extorts unconsciona
ble prices from the people? What
would all this amount to when he of
fers an outraged people no word of
apology, when he expresses no regret,
when he makes no promise to amend?
This is the mildest presentation of
his case. It has none of his wild
threats to destroy his accusers, none
of the incriminating documents which
prove his guilt, not even all of his
confession, not a word of his desper
ate damnation of the alleged unfaith
ful employe who is said to have “stol
en” from the files and presented to
the Attorney General the evidences of
incriminating wrongs which he had
never mentioned and which had been
so long and so cautiously concealed.
How even the best of Senator Bai
ley’s friends can possibly excuse him
on this most generous presentation
of the case, The News, with all due
respect, is wholly unable to conceive.
—Dallas (Texas) News.
The dockyard employes at Toulon
have decided that if the French Cham
ber can afford to raise the pay of its
members the country can afford to
pay its workers more. Hence a dele
gation to the Minister of Marine and
a big strike impending.
WE WILL KEEP UP THE PACE.
P. O. Dept. 13, R. M. S.
January 11, 1907.
Mr. Thos. E. Watson.
Dear Sir: I have just finished a
review of No. 1, Vol. 1, of the
Monthly Jeffersonian.
Personally, I’m glad Col. Mann
“skunt” you a plenty since it forced
you to strike out on your own hook,
might have had to drag
that heavy load for a long while to
come.
If you can keep up the pace (I be
lieve you can) already shown your
success is assured. The new maga
zine Is better than the old in every*
way that I can judge. The paper,
type, get-up, illustrations, the me
chanical part, I mean, compares fa
vorably with the best in magazine
dom. I note you carry much adver
tising for a new-comer. 1 ‘The
Times,” of New York, in its initial
number, did not half so well. So I
take it that business men believe in
you as does the average man who has
read the original Watson’s.
Anyhow I mean to try you for a
year, and hope you will not need to
repeat the Spartan act with a
“Mann” instead of a “Fox” trying
to gnaw out your vitals.
My name will come via an agency
operated by a personal friend.
lon will note my “stationery.”
Hope your voice and pen will continue
in the crusade for better protection
for the man in the mail car behind
(right close behind) the engine.
Yours for success,
H. M. Messenger '
55 Orchard Grove Ave., Lake wood,
Ohio.
I
RIGHT SORT OF DEMOCRAT.
Mobley, Ark., Jan. 4, 1907.
Hon. Thos. E. Watson, Thomson, Ga.
My dear Sir: I have just received
the first issue of your new magazine
and think it better than the old one.
lam only a boy—a poor boy strug
gling against adversity and poverty.
Politics is a study and a passion with
me, and no other magazine appeals to
me like Watson’s.
It may hurt your feelings to tell
you I am a Democrat, but I have nev
er caught you preaching anything but
democratic doctrine.
I would like to know what your
opinion is of the greatest man in my
state—Jeff Davis.
Have you ever read a copy of our
Anti-Trust law? I would like to
have you say something of that law,
either through the Magazine or pri
vately.
I read every issue of the magazine
Mann and De France stole from you.
Your fiery eloquence and sound logic
made me a believer in you, as I have
always believed, in that estimable
gentleman, W. J. Bryan.
I read your Life and Times of Jef
ferson and will read your Jackson
book with interest. I want your oth
er book Bethany, but am too poor to
buy it now. Yours truly,
J. 0. Wasson.
Editor’s Note.—You shall have the
book. Will have the Publishers send
it to you with my compliments.
You didn’t hurt my feelings by
saying you are a Democrat for I see
that you are the right sort—Jeflfer
tonUn—ju»t u I un, T, E, VT.
7