The Austin Statesman (Austin, Tex.), Ed. 1 Saturday, January 26, 1907 Page: 2 of 12
twelve pages : ill. ; page 24 x 17 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
I, ‘
Judge J. D. Johnson Before in
as
Judge Cockrell—Please examine that
letter and refresh
vestigating Committee.
pose-
Tells of Mule Trades.
N
“DR. BRUMBY.”
43
h-
? i 111111 i i
CASTORIA
be governed more by the handwritin
expert.
Ing. • .
that he is
fiT
?
l
l am a bu:
isy man now. I am satisfied,
that if Mr./Stribbling had
ME
80
that it does, not matter what
time.
transactions were had
E
/
lb
Id
4
Hl
l
(
A Hint
POSTUM
0
I
I
)
900 Drops
nmnnummi
imvvenistrurzzursxrmsnsssariasnazusise
INFANIS/( MILDIEN
however,
obtained
Mr.
handed
1
■ ■
■■
A
....;.... . .,
At b mon l if- olci
35 Dosi s -35CINI*
facsimile Signature of
24dacZu
NEW YORK.
I
Il’s easy to find out, and
"THERES A REASON."
ammucamnamsnaanmamsannensanmanemrauneemazmancancnucnscnuzaznenmnammemcammemnmmmpoemn
Physicians Recommend Castoria
(ASTORIA has met with pronounced favor on the part of physicians, pharma-
ceutical societies and medical authorities. It is used by physicians with
results most gratifying. The extended use of Castoria is unquestionably the
result of three facts: First—The indisputable evidence that it is harmless:
SooondThat it not only allays stomach pains and quiets the nerves, but assimi-
lates the food: Third—It is an agreeable and perfect substitute for Castor Oil.
It is absolutely safe. It does not contain any Opium, Morphine, or other narcotic
and does not stupefy. It is unlike Soothing Syrups, Bateman's Drops, Godfrey’s
Cordial, etc. This is a good deal for a Medical Journal to say. Our duty, how-
ever, is to expose danger and record the means of advancing health. The day
for poisoning innocent children through greed or ignorance ought to end. To
our knowledge, Castoria is a remedy which produces composure and health, by
regulating the system—not by stupefying it—and our readers are entitled to
the information.—Hall’s Journal of Health.
2288 ■'
Verifies Signatures and Explains Pur
J. E. Labatt of Fort Worth
l-
w
REMEDY
OURm9
Coughs,Colds
CROUP.
AVegetable Preparation for As-
simitating the Food and Reg ula:
ting the Stomachs and Dowels of
I ain not a handwriting
have not studled handwriti
Chairman O'Neal states
Promotes DigestionCheerfu-
ne ss and Resf Contains neither
Opium. Morphine norMineral
Not NARCOTIC.
Every bottle of Cham-
berlain’s Cough Remedy it
guaranteed, and the dealer
from whom it is purchased
will refund the money to
anyone who is not satisfied
after using it.
The many remarkable
cures of colds and grip
effected by this preparation
have made it famous over
a large part of the civilized'
world. It can always be
depended upon and is pleas-
ant to take. It not onlyi
cures colds and grip, but)
counteracts any tendency
towards pneumonia.
‘wo WITNESSES
Ji
grot
com
In t
driv
stea
pen
to r
plal
bee
At the afternoon session of the house
investigating committee Judge J. 1).
Johnson of St, Louis was again called
to the stamnd.
Judge Cockrell asked to have Mr.
Lightfoot before the committee with
the documents from the attorney gen-
eral's department. Judge Cockrell
stated that O. P. Bowser of Dallas,
who had been called as a witness, was
present, and Mr. Cocke wished to
say that so far as he Was concerned
he was willing to excuse him.
Hi
Whooping cough is not
dangerous when the cough
is ke, ‘ loose and expectora-
tion free by the use of this
remedy.
I^ LXACT COPY or WRAppen.
This remedy is also a
certain cure for croup, and
has never been known to
fail. When given as soon
as the child becomes hoarse,
or even after the croupy
cough appears, it will pre-
vent the attack.
WHoODINO COUCH,
HOARSENESS.
BRONCHITIS,
SORE THROAT,
mLU2IZA,
Ixciriexr CoxstutmoH
asD aLL prrasrs or tax
THROAT and LUNGS.
for process.
Mr. McGregor stated that he knew
that Chairman O'Neal had issued pro-
cess for Mr. Naudain of his own inf-
Mr. Odell stated that the defense
was not willing to excuse him.
Chairman O’Neal held he would not
ba excused. Senator Hanger made the
point that witnesses should be excused
only by the committee and not by
counsel.
Chairman O’Neal stated that he had
been misrepresented by the Houston
Coffee MAY be your trouble.
Stop 10 days and use well-made
Chronicle. ,
I said I would not summon Mr.
Bailey because he was a party, and
Mr. Cocke said it was not necessary.
Then Mr. Cocke published a letter in
which he wants to know why I have
not subpenaed Judge Clark and others.
I want to say I have summoned these
witnesses. I don’t want any man to
play to the galleries at my expense.
He wants to know why I have not
summoned Mr. Naudain. He stated
that he was in St. Louis, and I tried
to get him there. I afterward noticed
that he had been before a justice of
the peace here and made certain state-
ments. and I had subpena issued on
my own initiative. Mr. Cocke does not
have to demand anything of me.
Another thing. I do not wish A list
of witnesses summoned given out by
the press until service has been had.
I have made that request. I have
tried to make myself plain. Mr.
Cocke complains that this list has been
given out, and I find now that he
himself gave to the representatives of
the press such a list before he asked
it contains no opium or other harmful substance, and it
may be given as confidently to a baby as to an adult,
wemmmzamummmmmumi-vrammmmmmammmaaammmamti
a^aroun-swva.mwB
Auki, Sad-
-isKeed • .
2raigz.
Waters-Plerce Oil company to J. W. B.,
Gainesville. It is for 11750 and has a
certain signature and other writing
on it. I want you to identify tho
signatures and writing, so far as you
know.
The signature t the letter June
10 purporting to be addressed to J.
P. Gruett is that of H. Clay Pierce,
I think. The voucher dated June 12.
to J. W. B., Gainesville, Texas, which
follows Waters-Pierce Oil company, is
in the handwriting of J. P. Gruett, Hr.
The signature following the words
“audited. Hutcheson,” I do not know.
The initials "J. P. Gruett, Jr.,” I do
not know. After the words "Approved
for payment, J. P. Gruett, Secretary,”
that is Gruett’s signature.
Any endorsement on the back, and
if so are you famikjar with the hand-
writing?
an operation.”
(Signed)
between the
The legislative investigating com-
mittees had Judge J. D, Johnson of St.
Louis and J. E. Labatt of Fort Worth1
on the witness stand yesterday, the
former occupying most of the session.
Fh testimony of Mr. Labatt was brief
and referred merely to some horse
and mule trades. Judge Johnson, how-
ever, took up the yarious vouchers
and documents which have now be-
come famous, verifying signatures and
telling of the purpose in issuing them.
The hearing dragged along very slowly
because of the many questions con-
tinually arising which have to be set-
tled before the real work goes on.
i
Letters from Prominent Physicians
addressed to Chas. H. Fletcher.
Dr. B. Halstead Scott, of Chicago, Ills., saye: “I have prescribed your a
Castoria often for Infants during my practice, and find it very satisfactory^'
• Dr. William Belmont, of Cleveland, Ohio, says: “Your Castoria stands
first in Its class, in my thirty years of practice I can say I never have
found anything that so filled tho place.”
Dr. J. H. Taft, of Brooklyn, N. Y., says: “I have used your Castoria and
found it an excellent remedy in my household and private practice for
many years. The formula is excellent.”
Dr. R. J. Hamlen, of Detroit, Mich., says: "I prescribe your Castoria
extensively, as I have never found anything to equal it for children's
troubles. I am aware that there are imitations in the field, but I always
see that my patients get Fletcher's.”
Dr. Wm. J.MoCrann, of Omaha, Neb., says: "As the father of thirteen
children I certainly know something about your great medicine, and aside
from my own family experience I have In my years of practice found Cas-
toria a popular and efficient remedy in almost every home."
Dr. J. R. Clausen, of Philadelphia, Pa., says: "The name that your Cas-
toria has made for itself in the tens of thousands of homes blessed by the
presence of children, scarcely needs to be supplemented by the endorse-
ment of the medical profession, but I, for one, most heartily endorse it and
believe it an excellent remedy.”
Dr. R. M. Ward, of Kansas City, Mo., says: "Physicians generally do not
prescribe proprietary preparations, but in the case of Castoria my experi-
ence, like that of many other physicians, has taught me to make an ex-
ception. I prescribe your Castoria In my practice because I have found It
to be a thoroughly reliable remedy for children's complaints. Any physi-
cian who has raised a family, as I have, will join me in heartiest recom-
mendation of Castoria.”
GENUINE CASTORIA ALWAYS
/ Bears the Signature of m
The Kind You Have Always Bought
In Use For Over 30 Years.
THE CENTAUR COMPANT. TT MURRAY erazur. NEW TOMA CITT.
■wc'niNdw1 inr i'»TTi in '1111111,11, aaMraa'^
1 f
’7h.nn^’tUuX;^
—-
• tlative. ,
J. D. Johnson was then put An the
stand and questioned about the docu-
ments from the attorney general's de-
partment, only to identify them. as
they have not yet been offered in ovl-
dence.
Judge Cockrell— The next document
I wish to offer is the voucher dated
St. Louis; Mo.. November 23, 1900.
for 8200. with certain signatures on it.
I will ask Mr. Johnson to examine it
and see if he can Identify it.
Manufactured only by
Chamberlain Medicine Co.
Manufacturing Pharmacists,
DE8 Moirns, IOWA, U. e. A,
AND rorojro, CANADA.
$38$28cs88088892988838
DPRICE,TWEBTT-FIVE/ENT&e,
roopmighted by Cbaenbertahh a Oo, 22j
__ ____
vyAyer’sChetryPectoralisaregularcoughmedi.
I .nzverh cine, « strong medicine, a doctor’s medicine.
*eUuM I L Good for easy coughs, hard cougbs, desperate
•/ coughs. If your doctor fully endorses it for
r 1. • your case, then take it. If not, then don’t take
orf icino ”• Never go contrary to his advice.
-Me-lute.xe2ipse£8A*2%:
a loan of 81500 From Mr.
your memory.
'he letter I have
/
Apexfect Remedy forConstipa-
tion. Sour Stomach.Diarrhoea,
Worms Convulsions .Feverish-
ness and Loss of Sleep.
Every Bottle
Warranted sg
Johnson—TI
mo—St. Louis, Mo., June 16.
No; after the word “J. w. 1s
the handwriting of Gruett.
I do not understand that tho name
J. W. Bailey purports to be signed
by him. Just an endorsemnt; it does
not purport to be signed by him?
No; I believe I mid it was the
handwriting of .1. I*. Grett.
At the date of thotie vouchers, what
<h« relation or J. P. Gruett to
the Waters-Fierce Oil company?
.! think.he was the secretary at the
Waters-Pierce Oil company. (Papers
are passed around to counsel and
members of committee.)
Mr. Odell—if those papers are to be
taken out. I want to ask another queg.
tion. I want to call your attention
to tja letter purporting to be signed
by H. Clay Pierce, president, and—
Ono moment; under the word pres-
ident. n«er close inspection, I see J.
■ I do not think this Mr. Pierce's
slzmature. The general style is the
.ante as Mr. Plerve’s signature. Mr.
Pierce has a secretary who lias been
with him several years named stewart,
who makes Plerce’s signature very
well. I am glad you called my atten-
tion to it. On close inspection. I do
not think it is Mr. Fierce's signature.
Judge Robertson asked to bn shown
a genuine signature of Mr. Pierce s.
Judge Poindexter-What date is that
June 80. 1000.
Judge Cockrell piepeeds with examt-
Bailey I would not have paid Mr,
Stribbling a fee six months later.
When was It you say you first wrote
Senator Bailey?
My recollection is this. My atten-
tion was directed to 'proceedings in
the Waco convention. Assaults werem-
made upon Attorney General Smith,
and I think Mr. Crane made state-
ments inconsistent with the conversa-
tion I had had with him, and I think
I wrote Senatpr Bailey on that sub-
ject. .
Mr. Johnson, all of your business
letters are confidential?
Yes, some more confidential than
others.
Why did you add to your letter of
(Continued on page 6.)
of Mr. Pierce, it is that of his secre-
tary.
I did not say that
I understood you to say you were
familiar with it and he could write
it very much the same as Mr. Pierce.
I have seen Mr. Pierce’s name signed
by him and it is very much like it.
In your opinion, by whom is it writ-
ten?
I could not say.
I only ask for an opinion. Have you
an opinion?
It would be merely surmise. It would
Waters-Pierce Oil company and others,
unless it may be shown that Senator
Bailey was connected with them. If
counsel has not something outside of
the papers themselves to show Senator
Bailey’s connection, it is not proper to
tak up the time of the committee
further, I think.
Judge Cockrell says he recognizes he
has no right to speak again at this
time, but asks permission, which is
given.
Judge Cockrell—I think this commit-
tee will say circumstantial evidence is
admissible. Let’s see if the documents
do not on ther face call for Inspection.
Mr. Wolfe—How can it be that let-
ters from Colonel Johnson to Judge
Clark can be admissabe against Sen-
ator Bailey?
Mr. Cockrell—Just as a bald propo-
sition, it would’not be, but in a chain
of circumstances there must be links.
All of the links can not be presented
at one time.
Mr. Cobbs—You say there must be
a chain. Mr. Johnson denies it, and
he is the man who wrote the letter.
Where does the chain come in?
, That we intend to show, if you wiH
have patience. We intend to develop
circumstances.
Mr. Cobbs—You have not stated that
you have evidence to establish the
charges.
Mr. Cockrell—I said we had circum-
stantial eydence that tends to con-
nect Senator Bailey with it. As to
probative force, we can not tell until
we examine witnesses. It seems to
me there is enough on the face of
those documents to make the com-
mittee want to go further.
Senator Looney— You assume . that
Mr. Pierce wrote the telegram be-
cause lie was in Wisconsin: then you
assume that Mr. Johnsn O. K.’d the
voucher because that telegram was
shown him; then you assume that
Senator Bailey was connected because
that voucher has Senator Bailey's
name.
After much discussion it is held that
there is nothing before the committee
and Judge Cockrell proceeds with the
examination.
Now, Mr. Johnson, you say you did
not become acquainted with Senator
Bailey until the latter part of April
or 1st of May, 19007
I did.
Wai ho in St. Louis about June 12.
1900, or . might he have been there
without your knowing it?
I presume so.
You do not know whether ho was in-
St. Louls at that time or not?
Only as I was informed. I did not
see him, Mr. Cockrell.
From whom did you get your in-
formation?
(Mr. Odell objects, hearsay; sus-
tained.)
Mr. Pierce, you say, was not there?
Mr. Finlay was there? •
What date?
June 12, 1900.
I do not remember. After that Mr.
Pierce was not there. From the cor-
respondence, I think he was .not.
You have no independent recollec-
tion at this time of what you were
trying to satisfy them about?
No.
Have you any recollection of how
the 81500 was paid?
I have no recollection of anything
about the payment, except on the
voucher. It passed out of my memory.
I suppose it was presented and dona
and thrown aside. I was a busy man
Mr. Jenkins moves to let him go.
Mr. Odell objects. He said: I de-
sire to make this suggestion with
reference to Mr. Labatt. Ite is a man
advancing in years. He is an old man
and somewhat feeble. If he has to Ko
home and undergo an operation, It may
be he can not return here. His testi-
mony relates to one of, the charges
made-here. I think Judge Cockrell
will agree with me that his testimony
will be short, and it seems to me that
it would be entirely proper to examine
him this afternoon. I ‘understand in
the district court witnesses are out on
by the court and then allowed to leave.
It occurs to me that he ought to be
put on because we might not be able
to get him back soon.
Mr. Robertson—I move that Mr.
Labatt be put on this afternoon if his
condition is such that he can be put
on.
Mr. Jenkins objects, that it is a mat-
ter for counsel to put him on or not.
saying: If counsel do not desire to
put him on I know of no rule of court
requiring him to be put on.
Judge Cockrell—I think the commit-
tee will not try to control me in put-
ting on witnesses, but I am willing to
put on witnesses any time convenient.
I am willing to put Mr. Labatt on as
soon as I am through with Mr. John-
son. I believe Air. Labatt will be will-
ing to stay if he is assured that he
will ba put on next.
Judge O’Neal—is that- satisfactory?
No objection was made.
Judge Cockrell—Mr. Johnson, read
that if you care to and look at the sig-
nature.
Judge Poindexter—What is the date?
Judge Cockrell—Colonel Johnson will
give you the date.
Mr. Johnson—November 12. address-
ed to Clark & Bolinger. Waco, Texas.It
is signed by me.
You had replies from those letters?
I think so.
Have you those letters here?
I h ve not.
Where are they?
In my files in St. Louis. All I have
Now, Mr. Johnson you say you are
intimately associated with Air. Pierce?
How long have you been associated
with him?
Since 1874.
In the employ of the Waters-Pierce
Oil company all of that time?
No, Mr. Pierce was in business for
himself in the oil business, when I first
began representing him. I think tab
firm at that time was Pierce A Van
Siwe, with headquarters at St. Louis
and doing business in the southwest.
Have you any general authority to
have money paid out on authority of
the Waters-Pierce Oil company?
I have the authority to ask that
money be paid out and my request is
generally compiled with. That is in
connection with the business in my
department.
You identified the telegram yester-
day having on it the words ”8. D,
drawn by Bailey," as being in the
handwriting of Mr. Finlay?
I said It looked like it.
Best of your knowledge and belief?
I said it looked like it.
Then you think it wax
I do not think. I do not intrude my
thoughts.
Have you any opinion about it?
Let’s see it, please. That looks lik
Mr. Finlay's handwriting.
What do ou understand the letters
"8. D.” to stand for?
That would be only surmise.
What do you surmise it to mean?
I surmise that it meant "sight draft.”
Now, another document. "O. K.,
J. I). Johnson." What led you to
O. K. that draft? What was your
authority for O. K‛ng it?
I think statements Were made to
me at the time. Whether by Mr.
Finlay or some one else I do not
know.
Somebody in authority?
Yes. The subjeet matter of that
draft I do know about, I had noth-
ing to do with* it. before or after I
attached my O. K. to it. I have no
recollection as to what. It was for.
Robertson—What draft?
For 11500. The matter passed out
of my memory.
Read the telegram and see if it re-
freshes your memory.
Not in the slightest, I have tried
to refresh my memory. I have cud-
geled my brain and can not recall.
You recollect the payment of the
money to Stribbling?
Not at that time.
• At some time?
Yes. 1
You have no recollection about it?
No. I have a faint recollection of
something of the kind.
Not clear enough?
No, sir. I want to say this in juw
tice to myself. I never O. K.’d
vouchers of the Wo tors-Pierce Oil
company. I do' not recall a single In-
stance aside from this. Expenditures
in my department are made under my
direction. I sometimes o. K. a bill and
send it up to the ofee and ’phone
some one.
You say you had special authority
to O. K. that?
I think there was some statement
made to mq at th time.
You had ritten documents?
Not necessarily.
You would have preferred written
documents?
Not if Mr. Finlay had asked me ta
O. K. It. I would have done so.
Mr. Finlay’s personal request would
have nutholzed it?
Ordinarily you tried to keep a record
in writing of this?
No: I did not keep a record.
The company does?
I suppose so.
You say you had authority to O. K.
that telegram from Mr. Pierce or Mr.
Finlay ?
Mr. Pierce was away at tho tme.
Where was he?
In Wisconsin.
You remember ho ws there at that
time?
I know it from letters I have here.
: You recall that Air. Finlay was in
, St. Iouis?
I do not know.
Mr. Finlay was the only other mart
whose word you would have taken?
At the request of the treasurer, I
J would have done so.
i What did the voucher authorize and
• what was the purpose nr.your O. KI
Well, ths voucher speaks for itself.
1900, addressed to Hon. George Clark,
Waco, Texas—is signed by my steno-
grapher.
That is not your signature?
No air.
Youhave a stenographer or clerk
who writes like you do?
No, that is not like my signature.
Judge Poindexter—What la the
name signed?
J. D. Johnson.
Judge Cockrell—Whose signature is
that, Mr. Johnson? (of another letter).
May I read the letter?
Yes, read the letter.
The letter you have handed me is
dated St Louis. Mo. August 2, 1909.
addressed to George Clark. Waco,
Texas. That is signed by me.
Judge O’Neal calls attention to the
following communication sent in: "I
have examined Mr. Labatt and find
him sufering from a carbuncle and
sugsest that you let him go home for
partment who will not be
witness.
Mr. Johnson—I never saw this
voucher before I came down here. I
can only speak from my knowledge of
the handwriting. After the word
"audited. W. H. Clance," I do not
know the signature. After the words
“entered, W, II. Clancey," I do not
know- the signature. I recognize Air.
Gruett’s signature. At the bottom is
the signature of II. Clay Pierce.
Any endorsements on the back? If
so, do you recognize the handwriting?
i I do not.
, The next document is a letter pur-
porting to be signed by J. W. Bailey,
dated Gainesville, March 28, 1901; then
letter dated June 10. ’1901, purporting
to be signed by H. Clay Pierce nnd
directed to J. P. Gruett, received Jun®
12. 1901. It has other stamps, voucher,
dated 81. Loouls, Mo., June 12, 1901.
This letter purporting to be signed
by your stenographer. You dictated
that?
I presume so. •
In your letter of June 16 you say
"I have to satisfy Henry & Stribbling,
at least for the time, being.” That did
not refer to the employment?
None whatever. I have no distinct
recollection as to what it referred to.
but I am satisfied it must have re-
ferred to the /voucher. I do not see
that It could refer to anything else.
Air. Robertson—What is the date?
Mr. Cockrell—The date of the
Voucher is—. The voucher is not dated
as I can see. Voucher is received
June 15. This letter is dated the next
day.
There is no top date to the voucher.
I do not remember the facts.
You connect the letter with the
voucher and say that they refer to the
same transaction?
I presume so. I had had no con-
nhetion with Henry & Stribbling and
did not talk to them.
And arrangements to satisfy them
were not done by you in person?
No, sir.
Can you explain how it was done?
I can not.
Have you no idea how it was done?
. The only theory I have in regard to
It is as to the voucher. ,
Bailey’s name is connected with the
papers on the face of the papers. Are
you going to shut ■jour eyes and not
look?
Mr. Wolfe I look at it this wav. It
we are ever going to end this investi-
gation, we must do what our rules re-
quire. We must observe the rules of
evidence. These documents. I will ad-
mit. may be good evidence against the
Waters-Pierce Oil company and its
connection with the Standard Oil com-
pany, yet they would not be admissible
against Senator Bailey unless it be
shown that he had knowledge of them.
It looks to me like that it is purelv-
hearsay evidence. Suppose Colonel
Johnson had testified that J. W. B. was
in the handwriting of Mr. Pierce. That
is no better evidence than if counsel'
had offered to prove that Mr. Pierce
In St. Louis had told Mr. A. that he
had a draft drawn by Mr. Bailey to be
paid to Henry & Stribling. That would
not be admissible. It is only hearsay
evidence and there is not a rule for its
admission. I suggest, merely to save
it authorized the payment to Henry
& Stribbling of $1500?
That in what it says on Ite face
For what account?
As it stands now, with interlinea-
tions, it is expense.
What did it originally stand for?
Fee in anti-trust cases.
Word "fee" is stricken out and word
“expense" written instead of it?
Yes.
You have no recollection .about it?
None whatever.
Why did they substitute the word
expense?
I never undertake to direct the form
of voucher. Form does not signify.
You were not in the habit of mak-
ing out vouchers?
No.
The words Stribbling & Taylor are
penciled through and substituted by
words Henry & Stribbling fee, Waco,
etc?
That shows the ignorance of the
man who had it endorsed.
You had them put expense?
Possibly that was made at by sug-
gestion. There was no fee due them.
Senator HkInner—Ale those vouch-
ers in evidence?
Judge Cockrell-- No.
Senator Skinner—They are being
discussed.
O'Neal—Do you object?
Senator Odell—Only to expedite
matters, I would like to ask witness
a question. Colonel Johnson I will
get you to state whether or not at
the time you O. K.’d this voucher
Senator Bailey was present?
No sir, nor did I see the draft.
I will get you to state when it was
before that and when It , was after
that that you saw Senator Bailey?
. Judge Cockrell— I do not believe
that is proper.
Judge O’Neal—I understand Sena-
tor Odell is laying predicate for an
objection.
Answer—I do not remember exactly.
’Along about the first of May, 1900; I
never met Senator Bailey till the lat-
ter part of April or first part of Alay.
I did not see him again for eighteen
months.
Now Colonel, I will get you to state
whether or not at the time of this
voucher, Juno 15, 1900, you had any
communication with Senator Bailey?
None whatever. I received no let-
ters from Senator Bailey that I re-
call and I never wrote one till about
the time of the convention in Waco.
Do, you recall about the date of tho
convention at Waco?
I do not recall the date except that
it was somewhere in the summer of
1900.
Do you admit, Judge Cockrell, that
it was some time in August?
Judge Cockrell—I do not recall the
date but I remember that It was some
time in the summer of 1900.
Senator Odell—I desire to interpose
objection to this witness being inter-
rogated Any -further about this
voucher. I will state first that it is a
voucher that has been heretofore ex-
hibited to the members of the legis-
lature and discussed, photographic
cople have been published in at least
one paper. Very many newspapers
have printed the written words and
figures. Therefore, the contents of
the voucher are well known not only
to this committee but to the whole
world that la ’taking any interest In
this matter. However, inasmuch, as
this testimony that is now being of-
fered, is to become part of a record
that will live long after the members
of thia committee and the interested
parties are no longer of earth, we ob-
ject to any testimony, hearsay, spec u-
lation, surmise, or otherwise about
this Vouchor as to what the witness
may have had in his mind when he O.
K.’d the voucher, unless Senator
Bailey was present or had know-
ledge of it. On preliminary exami-
nation, it will be remembered that
the witness said he saw Senator
Bailey for the last time before this
voucher wa O. K.’d by him the first
of Alay, 1900; thathe did not see him
again so far as he remembers and be-
lieves for eighteen months; that he
received no written or verbal com-
munication from Senator Bailey; that
he wrote Senator Bailey no letter of
any kind until after the Waco con-
vention in 1900, and it will be shown
that the convention was held some
time in August. I will ask one further
question of Colonel Johnson. The let-
ter, you wrote Senator Bailey after the
Waco convention—state whether or
not it had refrence to this voucher.
No, sir. It related to statements by
Attorney General Crane In the Waco
convention that I thought inconsistent
with the facts.
Judge Odell—And this letter was
written in August, had no reference
to or bearing upon, this feature. Now,
Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the
Committee, it will certainly appeal. It
seems to us. to any lawyer and all
lawyers of this committee that anv
communication had between this wit-
ness and any one else about transac-
tions with some ope else, that was not
sanctioned by Senator Bailey and that
Senator Bailey knew nothing abovt
and as this record shows and I think
will continue to shw he knew noth-
ing. add it should not be introduced to
confuse the issues here and in addition
to confusing them, prejudice the In-
terests of Senator Bailey, and JI
speculations And surmises in the minds
of this.witness with reference to how
this voucher came to be O. K.’d by nim
and as to what he may believe th6
voucher to show, • It occurs to us.
Mr. Chairman, for the reasons stated
that the testimony is clearly inadmis-
sible.
Judge Cockrell—I submit that we
can not Introduce the whole of our
testimony at one time. I must put it
in piece at a time.
Judge O'Neal—I will ask counsel if
he has any reasonable expectation of
connecting Senator Bailey with this?
Cockrell—Do you mean by circum-
stances or otherwise.
O’Neal—That you will connect him?
Cockrell—Yes, I think so. I should
not have made that suggestion, be-
cause it may do Senator Bailey an in-
justice. It may do Senator Bailey an
injustice to say that I'expect to con-
nect hrm with it. But what are wo
here for. Are we not searching for
the facts. Are wo going to stop at the
first witness and say thet we will not
follow certain lines of evidence? Why
not follow the matter up and see what
the facts are? We are not here ns
prosecutors. We are hero searching
for the facts. I do not know what the
facts are. These documents were be-
fore the house and senate. After those
documehts were put before the house,
the house said to you gentlemen: Go
out and see what the facts are. If wo
are not permitted to examine witnesses
unless we give assurances of establish-
ing Senator Bailey’s connection—it
we must tell this committee that we
xpoct to prove any or all of these
charges, I suggest that that is not
what I am here for? Why should We
not have a full investigation? Senator
TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE DOCUMENTS
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
in receipt of telegram as follows:
St. Louis, Mo., Jan. 25—Telegram
received. Will leave here Saturday
morning. Iron Mountain. J. P. Gruett,
J. P. Gruett, Jr.
Judge Cock cell presents book.
Mr. Johnson, here is a little book
stamped on back W. P. It contains
355 pages and has on the first page
W. P. C. 601, Rules for the use of this
code. Then 350 pages following that.
What is that book?
That is the private code book of the
Waters-Pierce Oil company. It is not
complete.
Another edition?
No.
Additions?
Yes.
Lately?
No, not within six months.
How long has that been in use?
This book represents an accumula-
tion of probably twenty-five years.
The last edition was printed in 1897.
Is that book used by any other com-
pany?
Not that I know of. It is the code
book of the Waters-Pierce Oil com-
pany. A part of it has been inserted
for the use of its oficerE, Mr. Pierce
and others, for private business.
So far as you know, did the
Standard Oil -company use that book?
(Senator Odell objects, but Senator
Bailey interposes that witness may
answer.)
Not so far as I know.
Are the words the same?
Altogether different.
You are familfer with the code book
of the. Standard Oil company?
I have used it, but I am not familiar
with it.
That is all as to the book. You say
you were familiar with the transac-
tions relating to the 83100 and $1500
vouchers?
I did not say I was familiar with
the transactions relating to the 83100
voucher.
Which two?
I did not say any of them. I said
the only voucher I ever saw before
was for 81500.
Do you know if the Standard Oli
company have in their possessio tho
code book of the Waters-Pierce Oil
Company?
I did not.
When did you have occasion to use
the Standard Oil company code book?
That was some time ago.
Two months?
Three or four years.
How long did you use it; covering
what period of time?
In isolated cases. I do not recall
how often or when. It was some time
ago.
After one of those codes is printed
and you have use for aditional words
how are they inserted?
Those words are suggested by par-
ties. I have suggested words in my
line. They go through Mr. Pierce and
word goes out to insert it and it goes
in the code book.
In writing?
Yes.
Senator Odell—Mr. Chairman, inas-
much as Mr, Lightfoot is to be used
as a witness, we understood this ex-
amination would be only to identify
the papers. \
Judge Cockrell—We do nt want to
trespass and Mr. Ighttoot has called
our attention to that fact. I only
wanted to save time while the com-
mittee was examining documents. He
asked to be allowed to use photo-
graphic copies.
Chairman O’Neal—Any objection?
Judge Odell—When we interrogate
Mr. Lightfoot and Mr. Johnson, we
want the originals. Judge Cockrell
says the attorney general wants' to
keep possession of the documents.
Mr. Cobbs makes the point that tho
papers were furnished Mr. Duncan in
the house and later' to himself, with-
out the attendance of Attorney Gen-
eral Davidson or Mr. Lightfoot, but
with an employe of the department.
Mr. Wolfe—I think this committee
is capable of preserving and handling
these papers and I do not see any
necessity of having them lugged
around as if they were afraid to trust
this committee with them. As a mem-
ber of this committee, I shall expect
to demand and to have the right to
examine these papers without having
the attorney general hold one cornor
of them. I think it is my duty and I
expect to do it. As for my part, I am
going to insist that we have a right
to the custody of those papers. The
attorney general may lock them up
when we are not using them. If we
want the papers and do not want the
attorney general, wo have a-right to
them.
Chairman O'Neal stated that he un-
derstood the papers were to be dsed
in another case and the attorney gen-
oral's department did not want them
to get out of legal custody before that
time.
Mr. Wolfe—Judge Duncan had them.
Mr. Cockrell—I can not see if the
committee is afforded every oppor-
tunity to examine the papers how It
wll affect a full, free and fair in-
vestigation fo the attorney general
to claim possesslon ftt nil times. He
is willing to have them used, but we
think ho should be present.
Chairman Q’Neal nsked it the rula
<11.1 nnt forbta lt. asking it it was de!
aired that tha committee change tho
rule.
Mr. Cockrell asked to have the rule
changed so as to allow Mr. Lightfoot
to be present and keep possession of
documents.
Mr. Wolfe I object.
Chairman O’Neal—Did the papers
go into the house?
Mr. Cobbs—Judge Duncan had them
and I had them.
Finally it Is decided to have a sub-
poena duces tecum issued to some em-
ployer of the attorney general’s de-
\ ■ -
ran AUSTIN DAnY STATESMIAN, SATURDAY, JANUARY N. 1907.
‘H GDtyta- opy..
-t,OdatabdAZopttotan1.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
The Austin Statesman (Austin, Tex.), Ed. 1 Saturday, January 26, 1907, newspaper, January 26, 1907; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1434738/m1/2/: accessed May 30, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .