E 664 
 .B2 C81 
 Copy 1 
 
 iiimiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiimiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiiic3iiiiiiiiiiiicg 
 
 CRAWFORD 
 
 ON 
 
 BAILEYISM 
 
 The Greatest Expose of Political Degeneracy Since 
 the Credit Mobilier Scandal 
 
 □ 
 
 I 
 
 I The Whole Story of the Unholy Alliance 
 I between Senator Bailey and 
 
 I Standard Oil 
 
 Sy COL. W. L. CRAWFORD 
 
 DALLAS. t6<AS 
 
 PRICE, 10 CENTS 
 
 I Published by Ededic News Bureau. P. O. Box 1065, Dallas, Texas | 
 
 S Copyrighted in 1897 by the EclcOic Newj Bureau. Dallai, Texai = 
 
 BiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiniiiiciiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiBiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiniiiiciiiiiiimifiniiiiiiiiiiiiS 
 

 s^ 
 
 OHI. 
 
 DEC 19 1908 
 
CRAWFORD ON BAILEYISM 
 
 Address by Col. W. L. Crawford, at 
 
 Waxahachie, Texas, 
 
 Sept, 21, 1907 
 
 My Fellow Citizens: While I thank you for the invitation to address the 
 people of Ellis County on the closely connected subjects of Bailey and Baileyism, 
 I nevertheless regret the conditions that have made it ad\isable in your opinion 
 to call on me to perform this patriotic duty. Such conditions have never before 
 existed in the history of this State, and if -we except the infamous rule of the carpet- 
 baggers in the days of reconstruction, when bribery was common and the pillage 
 of the people the apparent end of all poHtical effort, such conditions have never 
 before existed in any of the States of the South. For those wretched days we 
 renounce all responsibility. Cur homes were in ruins, our fields laid waste, our 
 people were disfranchised, and our government by the misfortune of war had passed 
 into unlineal hands. Texas has a heroic history. In the sixty years of her state- 
 hood she has sent as her representatives to the Senate of the United States Sam 
 Houston, Thomas J. Rusk, John Hemphill, J. Pinckney Henderson, Matt Ward, 
 Louis T. Wigfall, O. M. Roberts and David G. Burnett, (the last named not seated, 
 but their places filled by Morgan C. Hamilton, and J. W. Flanagan, Republican Sena- 
 tors of the Reconstruction Era), Sam Bell Maxey, Richard Coke, Jno. H. Reagan, 
 Horace Chilton, Roger Q. Mills and Charles A. Culberson. 
 
 It has never been stated or intimated by friend or foe that a dirty 
 dollar ever touched the hand of any of these, or that an act of treason against 
 this State ever seared the conscience or blighted the soul of any one of this illus- 
 trious galaxy. Honor and truth illustrated their lives, and love of country* was 
 the North Star by which they directed their course and to which they conformed 
 their conduct. Nearly all of these men sleep in honored graves. The three sur- 
 vivors still pursue the paths their fathers trod — still cling to love of country and 
 to uprightness in the public service as the brightest jewels that can adorn the 
 patriot's life. The illustrious dead of this proud galaxy of soldier-statesmen, by 
 their honest efforts and unsullied lives, left to us a heritage of unmeasured worth — 
 a grand State, peopled by honest and brave men. with no stain or dishonor on 
 the records of the servants of the people in the Senate of the United States. With 
 this heritage was cast upon us the just responsibility, not only of preserving and 
 perpetuating the honor, the dienity, the glory and prosperity of our State, but of 
 improving and adding to all of these noble things by our personal efforts and per- 
 sonal sacrifices, so that we may transmit to our children this grand State and its 
 government in a condition better and brighter than when it came to us. 
 
 But the strongest, the bravest and the best people cannot, at all times, prevent 
 the formation of treasonable plots and save their trusted servants and honored offi- 
 cers from the blighting temptation of corrupting gold. 
 
 The measureless fortitude, the matchless couraee, the ceaseless vigilance, the 
 noble purpose of the patriot army under Washington to make this country free, 
 of all of which Benedict Arnold had been a part, could not prevent or defeat the 
 culmination of his treason. But history records no name so groveling, so abandoned 
 and lost to shame, as to say of Benedict Arnold, he was the "bravest of the brave, 
 has been my friend, and I will stand by him now." Friendship must rest upon 
 worth, and must continue upon continued worth, or else its sweetest and holiest 
 attributes are lost. 
 
 The progress of time and circumstance has been such that each generation 
 has been surrounded by its own dangers and difficulties, and each has been charged 
 
 — 1- 
 
with the duty of protecting the safety of the State against these dangers as they 
 have arisen. It is comforting to us to-day to feel that our fathers in their day 
 met heroically every issue thrust upon them. The war w^ith Mexico for independ- 
 ence was an issue that belonged to them, and history tells how true and loyal they 
 were to duty then. The annexation of Texas to the Union was another issue. 
 Look around you, my countrymen, and contemplate your fruitful fields, your 
 happy homes, your towns and factories, and everything from earth to sky, and let 
 all attest the wisdom of our fathers in this. 
 
 The next issue — the most trying and saddest of all — was the war of secession. 
 If in this conflict our land was laid waste and the bravest and best of our men 
 consigned to soldiers' graves; if our hopes of national independence were crushed 
 by the iron hand of war, still we emerged from it with honor unsullied and cour- 
 age undaunted. 
 
 These things are to-day called to your minds for the purpose alone of directing 
 your attention to the manner in which the people of Texas have met each succeed- 
 ing issue as it has arisen, and how in every trial their conduct has been charac- 
 terized by truth, honor, virtue and self-denial. They lived above reproach, as the 
 great masses of the people of Texas live above reproach and in honor to-day. And 
 their officers and servants lived above suspicion of bribery and treason against the 
 public welfare and the public policy of the State. They would have tolerated 
 nothing short of this, and if the conduct of a public officer had been such as to 
 create against him a just suspicion of wrong doing against the public policy of the 
 State, or its honor, the scorpion lash of public indignation would have driven him 
 from place and power and consigned him to shame. Can it be, my countrymen, 
 that there is less of honor, truth, courage and patriotism among the people of Texas 
 to-day than in the past, or if it be true that in the demoralizing and degrading 
 whirl of commercialism we are compelled sorrowfully to look upon a decadence of 
 public virtue and patriotism? — can it be that there is not enough of public virtue 
 and public courage left to defend and protect the honor and dignity of Texas 
 against all assailants and their treasonable allies and abettors? 
 
 At peace with all the world, loved by many nations, honored and respected 
 by all, what are the issues with which we have to deal to-day? What the dangers 
 that have confronted us in the recent past and menace the public welfare of our 
 State and country now? What is the task that honor and duty call on us, the 
 people, to perform to-day? The greatest dangers to the people arise from eco- 
 nomic and commercial propositions. For years the people have been oppressed by 
 the wrongs of monopolies, and have groaned under the cruel tribute exacted and 
 taken by dishonest trusts. For years they have denounced these wron<?s in politi- 
 cal platforms, and have demanded that they be abolished and destroyed. The 
 people have written prohibitions against these things in their constitutions; have en- 
 acted laws by their legislatures to destroy and exile them; have created courts 
 and appointed officers to administer these laws and enforce the decrees made pur- 
 suant to them. The will of the people — the public policy of the State of Texas, 
 is known to all men, that transportation companies eneaged in State and interstate 
 business shall receive no more than a just and reasonable compensation for the ser- 
 vice rendered; that monopolies and trusts shall not exist in Texas. It is true of 
 these things, that if permitted to exist and go unrestrained they will in time consume 
 the substance of the people, debauch and degrade the public morals, bar the way 
 to individual effort, destroy liberty and crush out hope. These combined 
 subjects are known as the "interests." Between "the interests" and the people 
 the conflict has been waeing for years, and must continue until "the interests" are 
 subjugated, destroyed and brought under the control of just laws, or until government 
 by the people shall become a reproach, and liberty, dishonored and undone, shall 
 flee the land of its birth. 
 
 —2— 
 
There are more than ninety per cent of the people of this State who have no 
 personal desire either for the emoluments or honors of office. They constitute the 
 great industrious, non-scheming part of the people; they fill every walk of industry; 
 they conduct every legitimate line of commerce and manufacture; they project 
 every useful internal improvement and aid them by their assistance freely given; 
 they fill and adorn every polite profession and every educational institution; they 
 love their homes and their country, and are contented with the fruits of their own 
 labor; they are intelligent, honest-hearted, sincere and patriotic; they are inter- 
 ested alone in good and honest government; they wish no man a misfortune, and 
 would do no man a wrong; they are trusting and confiding, slow to suspect and 
 slow to anger. With all this, they are not unmindful of their manhood, their 
 dignity, their rights and their power. When too much oppressed they will turn 
 and strike the oppressor down, and when betrayed by one whom they have honored 
 and trusted, they will destroy. No man can advocate measures before election 
 contrary to their convictions of ri^ht and justice and secure their votes, and thus it 
 somtimes happens that the conscienceless demagogue, with lying tongue, will make 
 professions of loyally to the people and of desire to serve them, when in his heart 
 he despises their simple, honest ways, and in his purse he keeps the gold of the 
 trusts, monopolies and the "interests." From this it results that we must judge 
 all men by their acts and deeds rather than by their professions. The coward 
 boasts of his courare, the liar of his veracity, and the traitor of his loyalty. Modest 
 men of worth shun these hypocritical professions. 
 
 Let us now proceed to a calm, dispassionate consideration of the facts in this 
 case, and let us try to reach a just and honest conclusion, and when that conclusion 
 has been reached, let us vow as patriotic citizens that the honor of Texas shall be 
 preserved and her public policy enforced, though the ambition of every man in 
 public life to-day must be destroyed to do it. 
 
 THE EXPULSION OF THE OIL TRUST. 
 
 In 1895 certain suits for penalties aggre-'ating $105,000 were filed in the 
 District Court of McLennan County against the Waters-Pierce Oil Company for 
 a violation of the anti-trust laws of Texas. In 1897 a suit was filed in the Dis- 
 trict Court of Travis County to drive this same iniquitous and criminal corporation 
 out of the State for violating the same anti-trust laws. 
 
 In order that you may understand the methods of this trust, your attention 
 is here called to the amount of money taken by it under the methods of the Stan- 
 dard Oil trust, of which it was then, and ever since has been, a part, under first one 
 thieving device and scheme and then another. The Waters-Pierce Oil Company — 
 this branch of the Standard Oil Trust — in 1895, the year in which the penalty suits 
 were filed in McLennan County in behalf of the people, had a capital stock of $400,- 
 000, and no more. In that year the profits of the trust were $1,030,610.32 or 
 two hundred and fifty-seven and sixty-five one-hundredths per cent of proits on 
 the capital stock of its business. In 1896 it profits were $1,203,046.28, or 
 three hundred and seventy-six one-hundredths per cent of its capital stock. I n 
 1897 the per cent of profits to caoital stock was one hundred and ninety-ei7ht and 
 thirty-nine one-hundredths; in 1 898 the same per cent of profits was two hundred and 
 forty-eight and three-quarters ; in 1 899 it was two hundred and fifty-six, or in 
 the five years covered by the period from 1895 to 1900 this trust took from 
 the people as profits on a capital stock of $400,000, $5,046, 727.1 4, as will appear 
 from the following statement: 
 
 Per Cent 
 of Profits to 
 Term — - Capital. Profits. Capital. 
 
 January, 1894. to January, 1895. . .$400,000 $1,030,610.32 257.65 
 
 January, 1895, to January, 1896. .. 400.000 1,203,046.28 300.76 
 
January. 1896. to January. 1897. . . 400.000 l^\blb.^l 198.39 
 
 Janua;^ 1897 to January 1898. . . 400.000 995.072,63 248.75 
 
 January. 1898. to January. 1899. . . 400.000 K024.42 2.84 256.00 
 
 Total $5,046,727.14 
 
 Think of the business of the farmer, the stock raiser, the manufacturer, the mer- 
 chant, the banker, and every industry conducted in Ellis County during that period, 
 and tell me if these enormous profits do not establish by plenary proof that the 
 methods of acquiring them were dishonest. 'J'he farmer in Ellis County makes 
 eight or ten per cent upon his capital, and yet feels grateful. The average per 
 cent of profits upon every industry in Ellis County. I venture to say, is less than ten 
 per cent, and yet this trust in this period of time in the lowest year made one hun- 
 dred and ninety-eight and thirty-nine one-hundredths per cent upon its capital stock 
 and in the highest year made three hundred and seventy-six one-hundredths per cent, 
 while ten per cent profits is more than the industries of the United States yield, and 
 ten per cent on $400,000 is only $40,000; and if liberal and legitimate returns had 
 been made in a run of five years, this trust would have made but $200,000, 
 whereas, by trust methods, it took from the people in the territory in which it 
 operated over $5,000,000 in this same period of time. These suits to which 
 we have referred encountered the necessary delays of the law, but the suit in Travis 
 County was in favor of the State,and this powerful and conscienceless trust was 
 condemned by the verdict of a jury. The trust company appealed to the Court 
 of Civil Appeals. The judgment was affirmed. It was again affirmed by the 
 Supreme Court of the State of Texas and finally by the Supreme Court of the 
 United States. As each successive legal battle occurred and the wires flashed 
 the results, announcing the victory of the State, the people rejoiced in the belief 
 that the majesty of the law was to triumph and that there was learning and virtue in 
 the courts sufficient to save the people from the pillage of this trust. 
 
 In 1 900, when the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the constitu- 
 tionality of the anti-trust law and of the judgment against the Waters-Pierce Oil 
 Company, every man in Texas knew that the legal battle was ended; that the 
 learned lawyers who had represented the Waters-Pierce Oil Company had exhausted 
 their learning and skill, and that nothing in the name of law could be done, unless 
 it was perhaps to present to the Supreme Court of the United States a 
 motion for a rehearing. This trust that had monopolized the oil trade in Texas 
 from 1 882 to 1 900 stood condemned by the judgment of all the courts, and the 
 people were to be freed from its spoliations and its robberies in the future. The 
 Attorney General who instituted this suit and prosecuted it to a successful termi- 
 nation had passed out of office. When this suit was instituted Charles A. Culberson 
 was Governor and M. M. Crane, Attorney General. These men had promised the 
 people that their anti-trust laws would be enforced, and in the litigation that ensued 
 they faithfully redeemed their pledge. In 1899 Culberson entered the United States 
 Senate. 
 
 Crane had retired to private life and to the practice of his profession — had gone back 
 to the body of the people from which he came, but he carried with him the proud 
 memory that he had fought the people's fight and won. When all legal remedies 
 had been exhausted; when there was no longer a court in this State, or in the 
 Nation, to which the Waters Pierce Oil Company could appeal for some technical 
 rule even that would enable it to continue its nefarious business; when the skill and 
 ingenuity of the learned law>'ers representing this trust had been exhausted; when 
 they realized that the majesty of the law had triumphed and that the culprit must 
 submit to its decree; the scene shifts and new characters come upon the stage. Sayers 
 was governor; Tom Smith was Attorney General, and Hardy was Secretary of 
 State. These men had neither studied the questions nor borne the heat and burden 
 of the legal battle that resulted in the conviction and expulsion of the Waters-Pierce 
 Oil Company from Texas. 
 
JOE BAILEY. THE AGENT OF THE OIL TRUST. 
 
 Joe Bailey was a member of Congress and had been since 1 890. He was nol 
 familiar with the affairs of the State of Texas, as he testified in January, 1901, 
 when Senator Decker asked him (Bailey) "Can you suggest any remedy for this 
 anti-trust law?" And Bailey answered: "Mr. Decker, I devote myself to Federal 
 questions and do not consider my opinion on State matters entitled to very great 
 weight." Pierce, the head of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, applied to David 
 R. Francis, a distinguished politician of the State of Missouri, not a lawyer, but a 
 business man of acknowledged sagacity and power — a successful man of affairs. 
 Before this. Governor Francis had been interested in the great public enterprise of 
 holding the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in the City of St. Louis. In this behalf 
 he had been much about Washington seeking aid from the Federal Government. 
 He had known Bailey prior to this time, but he had become better acquainted with 
 him there. While there Francis had formed specific ideas of Bailey's ability, 
 (for while Bailey in a demagogic way and with loud speech, to be heard in Texas, 
 denounced government aid to the St. Louis Exposition as unconstitutional, he never- 
 the less aided in its passage), Francis knew of Bailey's power to produce results by the 
 use of other men. Fle had learned to measure the man, and so when Pierce asked 
 Francis for an interview and told him that his lawyers in Texas and elsewhere had 
 fallen down in this lawsuit; that he wanted some man who could control the situa- 
 tion and continue the business of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company in Texas, as, 
 otherwise, it would be driven out, and his 600 or 700 per cent of profits greatl> 
 impaired. He wanted Francis to refer him to some man — for what? Not to appeal 
 in any court to redress a wrong done against the Waters-Pierce Oil Company. 
 Not to protect any interest of Pierce in Texas for he had no interest here except 
 to answer a bill of indictment in which he was defendant along with Rocke- 
 feller, Rogers, Flagler and others for violating the criminal laws of the State, and 
 Pierce would not have trusted his safety, in a court house and before a jury, on these 
 indictments to Joe Bailey. Pierce wanted a man who could evade the judgment 
 of the law, already pronounced and final, except only as to execution. By the 
 operation of this Trust he and the Standard Oil Trust were making a million ano 
 a half dollars a year on a capital stock of $400,000. Pierce did not want to 
 be jarred loose from so profitable a proposition as this. No man who worships gold 
 above his country, or his God would give up such a snap as this if any kind of fraud 
 and corruption could circumvent the judgment of the law and enable him to con- 
 tinue his depredations upon the people of Texas. Francis did not hesitate. Of 
 all men in the world of his acquaintance he selected Joe Bailey, and telegraphed 
 him to come to St. Louis at once. He came, and on the day Joe Bailey arrived 
 Francis departed, but left a letter for Bailey to Pierce that brought these men face* 
 to face. One of them was the head of an outlaw trust that had been despoiling 
 the people of Texas from 1882 down to 1900, over a period of eighteen years. 
 1 he other was a congressman from the State of Texas who had from I 390 lown 
 to 1900 iterated and reiterated to the people of this State his devotion to them 
 and their interests; his opposition to monopolies and trusts. He had proclaimed 
 everywhere and on all occasions his ability, his courage and his purpose to protect 
 their honor and defend their rights against monopolies and trusts. 
 
 Francis says that he recommended Bailey as "a lawyer," and belie\ed 
 that he was recommending him to perform the service of a law^yer out 
 of which he could earn a legitimate fee. Bailey said it was not a case for a lawyer, 
 but for "political influence." \^hen Bailey and Pierce met, Bailey readily undertook 
 to avoid the force of this judgment of ouster — readily undertook to turn to ashes 
 all the fruits arising from the labor of the law officers of Texas — readily undertook 
 to defeat and circumvent the laws of the people of Texas and to restore this trust 
 to the enjoyment of all the functions of pillage which it had practiced for eighteen 
 years. Bailey said that the proposition involved "influence," for which he could 
 
 —5— 
 
not take a fee, but he did undertake the odious task against the rights of his people, 
 the laws of his State and the judgments of her courts on account alone of his "friend- 
 ship for Dave Francis", who lay very near his heart. 
 
 My fellow citizens, has true, honest friendship, in the history of this world, ever 
 made such an infamous demand upon a friend? If it has a parallel in the memory 
 of any man, let him speak! 
 
 This plea, that Bailey inflicted this great wrong upon the people of Texas 
 because of "friendship for Francis", is but an unmanly and an untrue subterfuge. 
 
 He knew that a confession of the truth would have damned him eternally in the 
 estimation of every honest man. Francis, who has been honored in his own State, 
 (Missouri), and in the Nation, owes it to himself and to decency to publicly state 
 that he never in the name of "friendship," laid any such requisition upon Joe Bailey. 
 
 Francis telegraphed Joe Bailey at Gainesville to come to St. Louis. Francis had 
 no business with Joe Bailey; he left St. Louis the day Bi.iley arrived there. Bailey 
 was to meet Pierce. They did meet on the 25th day of April, 1900, in St. Louis, 
 beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of 1 exas and then and there entered into the 
 treasonable plot to defeat the enforcement of the laws of 1 exas, to perpetuate the 
 business of this thieving trust in the State, and to further fill the plethoric money 
 bags of Pierce, (whom Governor Campbell has within the week past denounced as 
 "The Pirate of All Pirates") with the hard-earned money of the industrious people 
 of this country. The whole truth of what occurred between Pierce and Bailey 
 at that seance of High Finance and Fraud will never be known to the honest people 
 of Texas. We have, however, found out some things that incriminate both. 
 
 What right had Joe Bailey to interfere in this matter at all? He was a con- 
 gressman, and the administration of the affairs of the State had been placed in 
 other hands by the people. The truth is, that on the 25th day of April, 1900, 
 Joe Bailey was under financial obligations to Francis on the Gibbs ranch deal, 
 which was consummated about June 24, 1 900, and was then being worked 
 out. Bailey's friends considered that in the Gibbs ranch deal he was getting a 
 property worth nearly a quarter of a million dollars. Bailey says that Francis 
 and Joe Sibley, a Standard Oil Congressman from Pennsylvania, bought the Gibbs 
 ranch for him and paid Eighty Thousand Dollars in each and 2 1 ,000 acres of Pecos 
 land, and allowed him thirty years in which to repay it; the Gibbs ranch was sold 
 to Francis subject to $80,000 of mortgages and liens and for $4,-00 in cash, 
 (which was paid by Joe Bailey,) and for 21,000 acres of Pecos lana, which was 
 conveyed to Gibbs by Francis, according to Fracis' testimony. 
 
 On this day, 25th of April, 1900, Bailey received from Pierce three thousand 
 and three hundred dollars in cash. And this is "friendship for Francis." Bailey 
 'concealed the receipt of this money from Pierce from the people of Texas, although 
 it became his duty on more than one occasion to divuLe it. In fact, this transaction 
 was not known to the people of Texas until after Bailey's election to the Senate 
 January 22, 1907. The photogravures of the vouchers which show this transaction 
 and his shameful connection with it were never published until January 21, 1907, 
 and then in the Chicago Examiner, which did not reach Austin until January 23, 
 1907. 
 
 It is true that the originals of some of these papers, and, perhaps others, came 
 into the possession of Attorney General Davidson in the fall of 1906. It is true 
 that in response to a resolution passed by the House of Representatives Attorney 
 General Davidson delivered the papers to the speaker, T. B. Love, on the 1 7th 
 day of January, 1907. 
 
 It is true that on the motion of T. D. Cobbs, a representative from Bexar 
 c unty, (and one of Harriman s lawyers, and one of the Committee of Invps i^^ation, 
 who entertained Joe Bailey at his home in San Antonio as his guest while he was 
 engaged as a committeeman in tryinor Joe Bailev for his crimes against the peoole 
 of Texas, and who resigned his office as legislator rather than surrender his free 
 passes on the railroads,) Joe Bailey and Tom Love retirea to the Speaker's 
 
 —6— 
 
room and examined these papers. On his return to the Legislative Hall 
 Joe Bailey attempted to explain these papers, and his criticism of them, which was 
 published broadcast, would have done credit to the fraudulent ingenuity of Abe 
 Hummel, the New York shyster, now serving a term in the New York Penitentiary 
 for his crimes. Go back and get his speech on that occasion and read it in con- 
 nection with his subsequent admissions and the evidence of his own witnesses." 
 1 hat paper. The Examiner, contained a photo-engravure of this account: 
 
 St. Louis, Mo., June 30th, 1900. 
 Waters-Pierce Oil Company, to H. C. Pierce, Dr. 
 
 April 25th, To demand loan to Joseph W. Bailey on Mr. Pierce's personal 
 voucher of April 25th, 1900. A-C. Texas Cases, $3,300. 
 
 Approved fr payment, J. P. GRUETT, Secty. 
 
 Audited, H. Naudain. Entered, V. R. J. P. G. Jr. 
 
 Received June 1 8th, 1 900, from Waters Pierce Oil Company Thirty-Three 
 Hundred Dollars in full payment of the above account. 
 
 (Signed). H. C. PIERCE. 
 
 But some one may ask why did Pierce write upon that paper that it was 
 a LOAN to Joseph W. Bailey? Why, my fellow citizens. Senator J. Ralph Burton 
 of Kansas, convicted and punished for taking a fee from a fraudulent company in 
 St. Louis for the exercise of his influence with the Post Office Department, looked 
 back upon his course through prison bars and said that the mistake he had made 
 was in not "borrowing" the money from the Rialto Grain Company, after the 
 manner of Bailey, instead of taking it as a fee. This is an old dodge, and this 
 paper, in connection with other matters in the same line, but emphasizes guilty 
 knowledge and guilty intent on the part of Bailey and Pierce, too. 
 
 "When Bailey came to Texas to secure the readmission of the Waters- Pierce 
 Oil Company into this territory, he had $3300 in money from that corporation, 
 through H. C. Pierce, its President, in his pocket, and the vouchers for such 
 money were audited and paid by the Waters-Pierce Oil Company. 
 
 Joe Bailey says that just after the close of the senatorial contest with Senator 
 Chilton he started back to Washington. He says at St. Louis he met Mr. 
 Pierce, President of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, who presented him a letter 
 from Da\id R. Francis. He says he told Mr. Pierce that Mr. Francis was a 
 particular friend of his, and that he would be glad to assist any friend of Mr. 
 Francis in so far as it was in his power and proper. He says he then asked 
 Pierce to state what the trouble was, and Pierce said he was being driven out 
 of Texas and wanted to continue his business there; he savs Pierce told him 
 his company was not the Standard Oil trust, nor any part of it. Bailey modestly 
 said to Pierce: "If you can convince me that your company is not a trust, and 
 will agree to come to Texas and take the oath to obey the laws, I will undertake 
 to say that you will have no trouble with the officers of the State. By what authority 
 did he make this statement? Who authorized him to pledge in advance the official 
 action of the sworn officers of the State of Texas. Bailey says Pierce satisfied him 
 that it was not a trust, and that he told Pierce he would return to Texas in a few days 
 and would lay the matter b?fore the Attorney General and the Secretary of State. 
 He says Pierce thanked him for this assurance, and stated that he would be 
 glad to pay him for his trouble. Bailey says that he could not pay him for 
 that kind of service, and Pierce asked him if he was not a lawyer, and Bailey 
 says, "Yes, but I practice law and not "influence." Bailey says that he told 
 Pierce that he did not need a lawyer, and that it would only b° necessary for him 
 to go in person to the Attorney General and Secretary of State and convince 
 them that his company was not a trust and take the oath to obey our laws. Bailey 
 says he tele<?raphed Mr. Stribling of Waco to meet him at Hillsboro; Stribling 
 could not do this, and Bailey continued his journey to Waco. In Waco he 
 conferred with the interested parties in respect to the Waters-Pierce Oil Company's 
 
litigation at that place. Now, mark you, neither the Attorney General nor the 
 Secretary of State were there in Waco. Bailey says he went from there to 
 Austin and saw Governor Sayers. He says just as he was leaving the Governor*s 
 room he conferred with him about the Waters-Pierce Oil Company's continuance 
 in Texas and explained the matter to Sayers as Pierce had explained it to him. 
 How had Pierce explained it to him, (with $3300?) He then went to the Secretary 
 of State, and says that he stated to him practically as he had stated to Mr. Thomas 
 and others at Waco and to Governor Sayers, but does not state what statements he 
 made to 1 homas or others at Waco. He says he then went to the Attorney General's 
 office and went over with him the same ground he had gone over with the others. 
 He says when he had finished Tom Smith says: "Joe, I have no option in this 
 matter. Even if I knew that this company was not a trust, and that it would 
 keep its promise to obey our laws, I could not allow a permit to be issued under 
 the judgment of the court." He says Tom Smith asked him if he had ever 
 examined that judgment, and he told him that he had not, but that Pierce had 
 told him that the court had acquitted his company of the charge of being a trust. 
 Bailey says that Tom Smith then got a copy of the judgment and a statute and 
 that they examined them together and agreed that the Waters-Pierce Oil Company 
 'hen existing could not be permitted to conduct its business in Texas. Bailey says 
 aiat all these things had occurred between himself and Tom Smith. 
 
 Tom Smith was sworn upon the same subject matter, and he says that Pierce 
 and Johnson, the St. Louis attorney of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, had been 
 in his office trying to adjust their business in Texas, and begging for time within 
 which to adjust their business preparatory to abiding the judgment recently affirmed 
 by the Supreme Court of the United States, which. Smith is of opinion, occurred 
 in March, 1900. Smith says that he considered that the judgment banishing the 
 Waters-Pierce Oil Company from Texas was perpetual. Smith says they wanted 
 to pay penalties and suggested fabulous sums. Smith says he told them, that is, 
 Pierce, Johnson and whatever other attorneys were there, that he would not con- 
 sider their money; that money was no object to Texas where principle was involved; 
 and Smith says: "That was all I had to say to them." Smith says that just 
 about the time of the second visit of these men some one said "Your friend 
 Bailey is in town," and he says he wrote a note to Bailey askin<? him to drop in; 
 that Bailey came within an hour after the note, which he said he had not re- 
 ceived. He says that he and Bailey talked on political issues, and Bailey broke 
 away from the political side of the question and says to Smith: "If you think 
 that they could do business legally, on account of a friend, (Francis), 1 would 
 be glad for them to be admitted." Why did not Bailey tell the truth, and say 
 to him, "Tom, I have $3300 of Pierce's money in my pocket now, and am 
 expecting aid from Francis and Sibley in the purchase of the Gibbs ranch, out of 
 which I expect to make a fortune." No man who knew the scheme for the re-ad- 
 mission of the company to be fraudulent, and the intent behind the act criminal 
 would have made the disclosure. Bailey did not make it. Smith says to Bailey: 
 "Have you read our statute on the subject?" and Bailey said, "No, 1 have not 
 read it," and Smith said, "That was about all Mr. Bailey said, and all his connec- 
 tion with it." Smith says: "Just after Bailey left the gentlemen who had been 
 in the office the day before made another visit," — namely, Mr. Pierce, Judge 
 Clark and Mr. Johnson. Smith says that nothing came of that interview, and 
 that that occurred in the first part of May, 1 900. Smith says the Waters-Pierce 
 Oil people wrote him and wanted him to suggest some method whereby they could 
 do business. Smith says: "All I could say was. You can't do business in Texas 
 under your old charter; I will grant you a reasonable time to adjust your business". 
 Bailey says that when his interview with Smith closed he told Pierce, who was 
 then in Austin, that the only thing left for him to do was to dissolve that ©lending 
 corporation and organize a new one; to come back with clean hands, obey the 
 law, and he would have no further trouble with our people. What did Bailey 
 
mean by "offending corporation" if he did not then know it was a trust? Now, 
 mark you ! By the record before the Investigating Committee in January, 1901, 
 Bailey was the first man to suggest to the Waters-Pierce Oil Company this disso- 
 lution of the old "offending corporation" and the fraudulent re-incorporation of 
 the same infamous trust. Tom Smith's suggestion that "You cannot do business 
 in Texas under your old charter," was in answer to a letter from the representative 
 of this trust after Bailey had given this advice; but Bailey says that he was not 
 responsible for this re-organization. He advised it; he counseled it; he pointed 
 the way and indicated the methods by which the judgment in favor of the 
 State of Texas was to be avoided, the public policy of the State defied and 
 trampled on, and this trust permitted to continue its spoliations of the industrious 
 people of Texas. His personal presence at the dissolution of the old corporation ; 
 his personal presence at the organization of the new corporation; his personal 
 presence with Pierce when he made the false oath ; his personal presence with Hardy 
 and Smith when they approved the rc-admission, were wholly unnecessary. If 
 a man in the Indian Territory pointed the way, advised the methods, counselled 
 and encouraged a crowd of men to invade Cooke County and steal horses from 
 a ranch, though the man who advised, encouraged and counseled in the 
 perpetration of the theft was never in the State of Texas, still he is an offender 
 against the laws of the State, and oueht to be convicted as a thief just the same 
 as the men who drove the horses from the pasture and into the Indian country 
 and there converted them. No lawyer in this assemblage will deny the truth of 
 that proposition. 
 
 Now, there is another thing. Before that same investigating committee, on 
 January 21, 1901, Bailey says: "It is not pleasant to be compelled to make 
 a public statement of 'my private business affairs', and it is still more disagreeable 
 to feel compelled to state the private business affairs of other gentlemen, but a man 
 cannot stand upon a question of that kind when his integrity is assailed, an I 
 deem it a duty to myself, my friends, and most of all to my party and to n«y 
 State, to trace every dollar of the money paid for and received from the land, 
 cattle, etc., in the Gibbs transaction." Why did he not then disclose his many 
 dealings with Pierce? 
 
 The political situation that had pointed against Bailey then was that his practices 
 in favor of the Waters-Pierce Oil Companj' had been treasonable to the people 
 of Texas. In all of his testimony before that committee, and in makin? this hypo- 
 critical disclosure of his private business affairs in respect to the Gibbs ranch, and when 
 talking directly about his efforts in favor of the Waters- Pierce Oil Company 
 oris'inating in a friendship for Governor Francis and him alone, he stnrliouslv con- 
 cealed the loan of $3300 on April 25. 1900. and that on June 13, 1900, he had 
 a drawn check or a si' ht draft for $1500 on H. C. Pierce, which was paid 
 by the Waters-Pierce Oi Company to Pierce, there being a note on the face of 
 it that it had been p^id to J. W. Railey "account of Texas casrs." 
 
 On May 31, 1900, the so-called "New Waters-Pierce Oil Company," in 
 the manner aforesaid, and by the means aforesaid, aided, encourap'ed and abetted 
 as aforesaid by Joe Bailey, then a Congressman from Texas, got a permit to con- 
 tinue in Texas, and to further steal from the people. 
 
 That you may understand the extent of its robbery of the p'^o^le after its 
 fraudulent re-admission into the State by means of the bo-'us dissolution, and 
 re-incorporation of the same old trust and the taking of a false oath, which they 
 call "bowing to the law and coming back into Texas with clean hands," ^ve call 
 your attention to a statement of its profit upon its capital stock as follows : 
 
 Per Cent of 
 
 Promts of 
 
 Term Canital Pro'its Canital 
 
 January 1900 to January 1901 $400,000 $1,813,032.88 $45^.00 
 
 January 1901 to January 1902 400,000 1,987.184.33 497.00 
 
lanuary 1 902 to January 1 903 400.000 2.00 1 .203. 1 8 500.00 
 
 janZ 903 to anuary 1 904 400.000 2.699.81 8.63 670.00 
 
 \Z7y 1904 to January 1905 400.000 2.790 .951.87 672.00 
 
 TOTAL $11,292,190.94 
 
 Thus taking from its trust territory profits on its old $400,000 capital amounting 
 to $11,292,190.94 or more than twice the sum dishonestly pillaged from the 
 people in the five years preceding its expulsion as shown by former table. This 
 robbery of the people in a period of five years was contrived by Joe Bailey, exe- 
 cuted by him and his co-conspirators and the people were expected to endure 
 it patiently, and now that their rights have again been re-estabilshed in the courts 
 to condone Bailey's treason and still without a murmur hold him in the highest 
 office of honor within their gift, without complaint. Every lawyer knows — the 
 people instinctively know — that every one who enters into a common purpose 
 or design is deemed a party to every act which has before been done by the 
 others, and a party to v,,e;y act which may afterwards be done by any of the 
 others in furtherance of the common design. The purpose of seeking the re-admission 
 of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company into Texas was to enable it to rob the people. 
 Through Joe Bailey's influence it was readmitted; through his influence it was 
 kept here. It did rob the people, and Joe Bailey cannot avoid the consequences 
 of these outrages by any rule of ethics or of law. While this thieving trust was 
 pillaging Texas and other parts of the territory, Joe Bailey was doing fairly well 
 in a financial way in getting money from Pierce, which was paid by the Waters- 
 Pierce Oil Company and getting money frcrr. the Standard Oil Trust for advice 
 about a matter of which he swore in 1901 to Decker he knew nothing. 
 
 But Joe Bailey'5 services did not end with this. He undertook to keep it here, as 
 the facts will show. Henry and Stribling, a co-partnership of lawyers at Waco, 
 had been private counsel for the State in the Waco penalty suits. They had 
 retired from or been forced out of the case by Cullen F. Thomas, the County 
 Attorney of McLennan County. Henry was then Congressman-elect from the 
 Waco District and took no further interest in the matter after the retirement of his 
 firm from that suit. Pierce, in connection with his attorney, Johnson, and the 
 "friend of Francis," Joe Bailey, had offered the pitiful sum of $10,000 to the 
 State and $3,000 to Henry & Stribling as a fee for their services to the State 
 in this matter. Tom Smith had said that Pierce had offered him "fabulous sums", 
 but this was before Joe Bailey came into the fight. About June 5. 1900. George 
 Clark, of Waco, one of the Texas attorneys of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, 
 wrote J. D. Johnson, the St. Louis attorney of the same company, that Stribling 
 was mad and was threatening a receivership for the Waters-Pierce Oil Company 
 in the courts of Texas. Now, this fraudulent re-admission was too fresh and 
 the fraudulent schemes too apparent to stand even a little jar in any court in 
 Texas, and so the following proceedings were had: 
 
 On June 12. 1900, Bailey and Pierce were widely separated. One was 
 on the lakes in Wisconsin; the other at Gainesville. Texas. Finley was the brother- 
 in-law of Pierce, and in charge of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, and was 
 in St. Louis. Johnson was and had been for a long time the General Attorney 
 for the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, and was in St. Louis. On June 12. 1900, 
 Pierce sent the following telegram to Finley: 
 
 ANDREW M. FINLEY. Lake Nebagamon. Wisconsin, June 12th. 
 
 St. Louis, Mo. 
 If Johnson approves authorize Bailey to loan Stribling on his note fifteen hundred 
 dollars. Bailey should quiet all Texas parties. Tell him I will see him soon. 
 
 H. C. PIERCE." 
 
 On this telegram there is a notation in writing: "S. D." (which means a 
 
 sight draft) "Drawn by Bailey for $1500." On June 13, 1900, at the town 
 
 of Gainesville, Bailey draws his check on H. C. Pierce in favor of himself or 
 
 his bank for $1500. By a receipt dated St. Louis, Missouri, June 15, 1900: 
 
 —10— 
 
"Received of Waters-Pierce Oil Company $1500 — J. W. Bailey, account Texas 
 cases, signed H. C. Pierce." (Signed either in Wisconsin or in St. Louis, after 
 Pierces return). On the reverse side of this there is in writing: "Account 
 Stribling 6c Taylor (erased) Henry & Stribling (inserted) fees Waco cases," and 
 the notation of "anti-trust civil case." At the same time, or bearing the same 
 date, there is an account as follows: 
 
 "Waters- Pierce Oil Company to Henry & Stribling, Dr., Waco, Texas. 
 Account of fee expense in anti-trust civil case of State of Texas, vs. W.-P. O. C. 
 at Waco $1500." 
 
 On the face of this account is: "O. K., J. D. Johnson," thus meeting the 
 requirement of Pierce's telegram from Lake Nebagamon to Finley. This account 
 is approved for payment by A. M. Finley, vice-president. It has a receipt: 
 "Received June 15, 1900, from Waters Pierce Oil Company $1500, in full 
 payment of above account." That receipt is attested by Bailey's draft drawn at 
 Gainesville on June 1 3th in favor of himself on the Red River Bank at Gainesville.. 
 On this same account is this notation; "Draft delivered to Mr, H. C. Pierce by 
 Mr. Gruett, November 17, 1907. And all of these different items were audited 
 by H. H. Stein, one of the auditors of the Standard Oil Trust, except the $3300, 
 which was audited by H. Naudin, another of the auditors of the same trust. 
 
 Now, my fellow citizens ,in calling your attention to these combined transac- 
 tions, which aggregate $4,800 of principal, I desire to call your attention to 
 the fact that Bailey says that when the attack was made upon him in connection 
 with the Gibbs transaction he resolved that he would not allow the business affars 
 of a "friend" Hke Mr. Francis to become involved in the bitterness of political 
 strife, and he set about to repurchase the Francis land from Gibbs. He complains 
 that his enemies were dragging Francis and Joseph C. Sibley into these accusations 
 and into the political troubles in Texas, growing out of the destruction of the 
 people's victory against this trust and restoring to it the power to further pillage 
 them. ^ It is of no concern whether the Gibbs transaction had any relation to 
 Bailey's services rendered to the Waters-Pierce Oil Company or to the St. Louis 
 Pair project. Bailey says he wanted to get rid of those things in order to spare 
 the feelings of Francis and Sibley. He had no concern either for the feelings 
 or the rights of the people of Texas. 
 
 Now, as growing out of these transactions and the exhibits to which I have 
 referred, I want to call your attention to some testimony in this case developed 
 by the investigation of 1907, not hinted at in Bailey's Testimony before the Legis- 
 lative Committee in 1901, which, in my opinion, damns him in the estimation of 
 all honest and fair-minded men. 
 
 I call your attention to the fact that on the account marked "Waters- Pierce 
 Oil Company to Henry & Stribling," there appears this notation: "Draft delivered 
 to Mr. H. C. Pierce by Mr. Gruett on November 17, 1900." At the same 
 time the due bill for $3300, which was taken from Bailey April 25, 1900, 
 went into the hands of Pierce. The record shows that about the 1 7th of 
 November, 1900, Bailey was in the city of St. Louis. On the 23rd of No- 
 vember he received $200 which was charged to him on the books of the 
 Waters-Pierce Oil Company. He had procured, by a concealment 
 of the truth from a partisan committee of the Twenty-Seventh Leg- 
 islature, an exculpation of himself from the charges of treason against the 
 people of Texas. Do you believe that if he had in that investigation disclosed 
 the fact that he had the money of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company in his pocket 
 at the time he was negotiating with your Attorney General and Secretary of 
 State, and inviting the assistance of your Governor to secure the re-admission of 
 the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, that he could have obtained, even from a 
 partisan committee, if half way honest, a vindication? What did Pierce want 
 with these evidences of Bailey's indebtedness? Why, on the 17th of November, 
 did Pierce, as president of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company want to withdraw 
 
 —11— 
 
these papers from the files of that company? What occurred between Bailey 
 and Pierce in St. Louis about the 17th of November. 1900? We have been 
 unable to inquire of H. C. Pierce. He has dodged all process servers and 
 spurned all efforts of the people to secure his evidence. 
 
 Let us see what relation David R. Francis had to this matter. Francis says 
 that when he introduced Pierce to Bailey, or Bailey to Pierce, he believed Pierce 
 wanted to employ a lawyer for such legitimate business as a lawyer might do. 
 Francis says he believed Bailey was a good lawyer, although himself having 
 business in Texas and large interests elsewhere, he had never sought Bailey's 
 assistance as a lawyer, and had never paid him a fee. By some means or other, 
 on the 22nd of November, Francis writes Pierce in the City of St. Louis a note, 
 enclosing at the same time his check in favor of Pierce for $4800--no interest, 
 mark you, though Bailey says these so-called loans were to bear interest — and 
 requests Pierce to send to him (Francis) the claim he has against Joe Bailey, and 
 on the same day, to-wit, November 22. 1900, Francis sends these two guilty 
 papers — the $3300 and the $1500 — to Joe Bailey at Washington. Francis 
 says that he does not know where or from whom he got the money which he 
 sent to Pierce. Francis did not know that five days before he sent this check to 
 Pierce, Pierce had withdrawn these witnesses of crime from the records of the 
 Waters-Pierce Oil Company. Was Pierce holding these papers so that no one 
 might know of the transaction except himself and Francis? Was he waiting 
 and expecting this remittance from Francis. When Francis wrote the letter to 
 Bailey, which I incorporate here, did Francis know anything about the business 
 relations between Pierce, acting for the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, and Joe 
 Bailey? Pierce simply sent to Francis these two items, one for $3300 and the 
 other for $1500, but acccompanied them with no word of explanation, but he 
 left in the files of the. Waters-Pierce Oil Company these vouchers upon which he 
 (Pierce) had placed his signature; these vouchers that have been paid by the 
 Waters-Pierce Oil Company and audited by the auditor of the Standard Oil 
 Trust. More than this, between the rendering of these services by Bailey to the 
 Waters-Pierce Oil Company, by which it was permitted to continue to rob the 
 people of this State, Bailey had told Francis that he did not charge or receive 
 from Pierce one cent, but that whatever services he had rendered he had rendered 
 out of his "friendship for Francis." When Francis met Pierce in a club in St. 
 Louis, he stated to Pierce: "Bailey tells me you did not pay for the services 
 rendered you," and Pierce, with that effrontery which characterizes the unscru- 
 pulous trust millionaire in the presence of his associates in a swell Club, speaking 
 of a politician and a poor lawyer, says: "Did he tell you that? Did he tell you 
 I loaned him money — which I did?" This angered Francis. Francis is a smart 
 man of affairs, as well as a politician, and he knew exactly what Pierce's statement 
 in that club meant. He knew that the loan part of it was a mere sham to 
 cover a fraud, and Francis at once became justly indignant at the whole proceeding, 
 and doubtless regretful of the part he had unwittingly been induced to play in it. 
 Francis became afraid of Bailey, he became apprehensive, on account of the 
 turn things had taken, that Bailey would make financial exactions of him that 
 he could not decline, and afterwards, on the 1 7th day of August, 1 900, he 
 wrote to Pierce this letter: 
 
 "MR. H. CLAY PIERCE, Clydes Crossing, Mass. 
 
 Our friend Bailey, it appears, has been violently attacked in Texas for his 
 efforts in your behalf. He writes he has charged you no fee, nor does he say 
 he proposes to do so, continuing to attribute his entire action in the matter for 
 'friendship to me.' You can readily see how this embarrasses me and how 
 difficult it becomes for me to fail to readily comply with any request he may 
 make." (Signed) D. R. FRANCIS." 
 
 Is it true that Joe Bailey and Pierce became alarmed at this and doubted 
 whether they could use Francis further, or is it true that Bailey and Pierce 
 
believed that dead men tell no tales, and that if they could contrive to have 
 this $3300 and $1500 paid by Francis, they might induce Francis to believe 
 that these things were really loans irstead of corrupt fees, and so contrived, by 
 some means, which Francis does not know and could not state, to put $4800 
 into his hands in order lo take these tell-tale papers from the hands of Pierce 
 and put them back into the hands of Joe Bailey? When Bailey got these 
 papers into his hands he might well denounce them as forgeries; he might well 
 say that if any man could produce the $1500 draft he would resign his office. 
 He knew the paper; he knew that it was in his possession, but he never told 
 it until it was forced from his witness, Francis, in 1907, at Austin, when Francis 
 had come from St. Louis to give Joe Bailey a character. Why did not Pierce 
 
 come also? aa • l 
 
 In connecton with this same $3300 demand loan, and the $1500 sight 
 draft, on November 22, 1900, at St. Louis, Francis writes the following letter: 
 
 "MR. H. CLAY PIERCE. City. 
 
 Dear Sir: I enclose my personal check for $4800, payable to your order, m 
 exchange, for which please send me by bearer, J. W. Bailey's receipts or due 
 bills given you for like amount. I understand this to be the total of Mr. Bailey's 
 obligations to you. If it is not so, please advse me. 
 
 Yours truly, D. R. FRANCIS." 
 
 On the same day Francis wrote to Joe Bailey as follows : 
 
 "My. Dear Sir: I today paid Mr. H. C. Pierce $4,800, and asked him to 
 send me in exchange therefor whatever drafts or receipts for money made by 
 you he misht have in his possession. My letter also stated that my impression 
 was that $4800 was the extent of your obHgations to him, but requested that he 
 advise me if they were in excess of that amount. He made no reply to my 
 letter other than to send me the enclosed, which I forward to you, the same 
 being your receipt of April 25. 1900, for $3300, which the voucher designates 
 as a "demand loan," and your sight draft on him dated Gamesville, iexas, 
 June 13. 1900. for $1500. (Signed) D. R. FRANCIS. 
 
 Francis says he never knew that Pierce had loaned Bailey any money until 
 Pierce told him so in the presence of five or six men. "The conversation came 
 about this way: I said to Pierce, how did Bailey serve you? He said: 'He 
 served me well; he is an able man; I think a great deal of him,' but I said, 
 Bailey tells me he refused to charge you anything; I said, you are not going 
 to let Bailey do that work for nothing, are you. Pierce said: 'Bailey borrowed 
 some money of me,' and he gave me the amount then, but I do not recall it; 
 it was a great surprise to me, because I did not know Bailey borrowed any 
 money from him." 
 
 When Francis was asked: "This $4800 mentioned in the letter of Novembei 
 22, 1900 — was that paid back to you by Senator Bailey?" He answered; 
 "Why, I cannot tell anything about it from these books; I have looked all through 
 here." Francis further said about this payment that he made to Pierce, "Pierce, 
 you are not going to let Bailey do all that work for nothing," and then Pierce 
 told him of this loan — which he did not like. Francis further said: "I did 
 not have any interest in it except in Bailey, and I must have been delighted 
 when I paid that loan, for "I would have paid it if I had known that he would 
 have never paid it back. 
 
 Why would he have paid it without any return? In fact, the testimony 
 does not show except by a process of exclusion, that this money was ever repaid to 
 him by Bailey. In fact, he does not know anything about that transaction, and 
 when asked about clearing up the records of these loans — if he did not desire them 
 cleared up to proect Mr. Bailey — Mr. Francis says: "I wanted to see it, yes, sir; 
 I wanted to see it cleared up greater on Bailey's account; at the same time, 1 
 did not want to be mixed ; I did not want to be responsible for Bailey's political 
 troubles in any way; I did not want to feel that I was involved in it." Question: 
 
 —11— 
 
"Well, now, you are unable to say where you got that $3300?" Answer: 
 "Yes, sir; 1 am unable to say where 1 got that $3300 and the $1500." Question: 
 "And the $1500?" Answer: "Yes, sir." Francis said that when Pierce told 
 him that he had made Bailey a loan he dropped the subject with Pierce at 
 once; there were five or six other men present. When asked the question: 
 "Didn't you like it?" Francis said: "No, I didn't like it." The question was 
 asked: "It didn't look good, did it?" to which Francis answered: "I didn't 
 want Pierce to tell it before five or six other people; I didn't want him to tell 
 it, it wasn't very business; what I was doing, I was guying Pierce about letting 
 Bailey work for nothing, and I said ' 1 his whole thing is charged up to me, 
 and I do not propose to be left in that position, and you ought to pay this man," 
 and Francis says that while he had known Pierce for a long time, he didn't 
 think he had seen him three times within six years. 
 
 Now, why should Bailey want to ret back the possession of this $3300 
 demand loan and this $1500 sight draft? Pierce, in an open conversation in 
 a club, had spoken of it an a way that every man knew that it was a direct 
 reflection on the ii tegrity of Joe Bailey. Francis knew it as well as any man 
 there, and his testii. ony avows his dislike of it and expresses the willingness to 
 have paid it without a relurn of it by Bailey rather than to become complicated 
 in such a transaction. In respect to the $1500 sight draft drawn by Bailey 
 on Pierce — in connection with Pierce's telegram to Finley, "If Johnson approves, 
 authorize Bailey to loan Slribbling on his note $1500. Bailey should quiet all 
 Texas parties. Tell him I will see him soon"- — in connection with the receipt 
 signed by H. Clay Pierce to the Waters Pierce Oil Company for that $1500 
 paid to J. W, Bailey account of Texas cases — in connection v/ith the further 
 endorsement on that receipt that it was in favor of Henry <k Stribbling account 
 fees Waco cases — in connection with the account set out and made by the 
 Waters Pierce Oil Company against Henry & Stribbling, which account was 
 receipted by Bailey's si-ht draft attached for $1500, which draft was delivered 
 to H. C. Pierce on November I 7, when, manifestly Pierce and Bailey were both in- 
 terested in suppressing these papers and getting them back into Bailey's possession — I 
 submit to you that taking all of these evidences together, Geo. Clark's letter, the Pierce 
 lelegram, the tailcy si ht draft, Pierce's receipt for the money repaid to him by 
 the Waters Pierce Cil Company, the voucher against Henry & Stribbling with 
 the O. K. of J. D. Johnson and the receipt by draft attached, with the testimony 
 of Potter showing that this draft went through his bank in Gainesville, was paid 
 in St. Louis, the money was drawn from the bank by Joe Bailey on his private 
 account, instead of being approoriated to loan Stribbling, and was appropriated 
 for the use and benefit of Joe Bailey — I say all of these thin-^s, looked at in this 
 reasonable and fair way, indicate that Joe Bailey received this money for one 
 purpose and used and appropriated it for his own use in another direction. If 
 the contemporaneous writings of H. C. Pierce, J. D. Johnson, A. M. Finley and 
 H. H. Stein, the auditor of the Standard Oil Trust, signify anything, they signify 
 an embezzlement of this $1500. No fair-minded man can take these papers 
 and look at them dispassionately and arrive at any other conclusion. These 
 papers bearing the genuine si'-natures of these men, Pierce's to the telegram, 
 Bailey's to the draft (in his possession now), Pierce's receipt, J. D. Johnson's 
 O. K., and the account a?ainst Henry & Stribbling, receipted by the draft 
 attached, and (he fact that while the $1500 meant for Stribbling miscarried and 
 did not reach him, he yet, according to his own testimony, later in the fall, (No- 
 vember 20, 1900), received $3,100 from Johnson, the attorney, to lobby in 
 the interests of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, before the Twenty-Seventh 
 Legislature, which whitewashed Joe Bailey and kept its hands off the Waters- 
 Pierce Oil Com'-iany. This was paid to Stribbling in St. Louis, 
 on November 20, 1900, $100 to pay his expenses to St. Louis, 
 and $3000 for his services to be rendered in looking after the interests 
 of the trust before the Legislature, and Johnson had written Clark that he had 
 
 —14— 
 
quieted Stribbling for the present. Take these things together and they mean 
 this and nothing less, and yet Bailey and the sycophants and partizans who follow 
 him say that the people of this country ought not to pay heed to these things 
 nor consider them against Joe Bailey, because they were stolen and abstracted 
 from the papers of the Waters-Pierce Cil Company by James P. Gruett, secretary of 
 the company, who afterwards left the service on account of a disagree. net with 
 Pierce. Now, my fellow citizens, there is not a lawyer in this audience who 
 does not know that it is no defense to an indictment for frgery that the instrument 
 forged was stolen from the possession of some one who held it for the forger. 
 The question or how the people of Texas came into possession of all of these 
 evidences of criminality is wholly irrelevant to the issue. 1 he question, and the 
 only question involved in the case, is, do these papers speak the truth? Did 
 Bailey get this money? Did Pierce send this telegram? Did Johnson O. K. 
 the account? Was Bailey's draft attached to that account? Did Francis pay 
 that $1500 and send it back to Bailey? These are the truths in this transaction, 
 and they are not to be in any wise minimized by a suggestion that Gruett look 
 them from the Waters-Pierce Oil Company. That proposition has been too often 
 decided. It is too fundamental a proposition in the law of every land. But, not- 
 withstanding all of these things that had occurred a long way from home, in Sl 
 Louis and in Wisconsin, emboldened by the success he had achieved in having 
 himself whitewashed by the Twenty-seventh Legislature in as weak and clumsy 
 an investigation as ever went through a legislative body, and further emboldened 
 by a want of resentment on the part of the people of Texas, whom he had denounced 
 for their suspicions against his integrity, instead of abandoning these practices, 
 which had never been indulged in by any other Senator from Texas, he continues 
 to guard the interests of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company; he defies the whole 
 State of Texas to interfere with that which he had done; he threatens political 
 ostracism to any man who challenges the righteousness of his conduct, and continues 
 to borrow money from Pierce. 
 
 On March I, 1901, at Washington, he makes a note to H. C. Pierce 
 "$8,000.00. Washington, D. C, March 1st, 190L 
 
 'Tour months after date I promise to pay to the order of H. C. Pierce 
 
 Eight Thousand Dollars, at his office in St. Louis, 
 
 Mo Value received. J. W. BAILEY." 
 
 On March 3, H. C. Pierce writes to the secretary as follows: 
 "J. P. GRUETT, Esquire, Sect., 
 
 Dear Sir: Take this note into bills receivable and deposit company's check for 
 like amount to my credit with Fourth National Bank, as I have given Bailey my 
 check. Yours truly, H. C. PIERCE." 
 
 On March 6th, the Waters-Pierce Oil Company makes a voucher as follows: 
 
 "WATERS-PIERCE OIL COMPANY, 
 TO H. C. PIERCE, DR. 
 
 For amount of loan to J. W. Bailey as per note in hands of treasurer, $80(*0. 
 
 Approved for payment, J. P. GRUETT, Secretary." 
 
 On the same day is the receipt of H. C. Pierce for this mon^y. This note 
 was photographed and published all over the United States, as well as this 
 voucher. On the letter of Pierce from the Waldorf-Astoria this notation is made- 
 
 "Check No. 44430, $8000 deposited with the Fourth National Bank to the 
 credit of H. C. Pierce." 
 
 On the 28th day of March, 1901, J. W .Bailey writes this letter: 
 
 "Gancsville,. 3-28-190!. 
 MR. H. C. PIERCE, St. Louis, Missouri. 
 
 My dear Pierce: Send me New York Exchange for $1750. Have it made 
 payable to my order so that it will not be necessary for you to endorse it. Send 
 it at once, as I oueht to have had it several days. 
 
 Your friend truly, J. W. BAILEY." 
 
 —15- 
 
On June J 0, 1901, at St. Louis, Missouri, Pierce writes: 
 
 "MR. J. P. GRUETT. Secretary. Building. 
 
 Dear Sir: Please send New York Exchange for $1750 to Joseph W. Bailey 
 at Gainesville, Texas, and charge against legal expenses on account of Texas 
 legislation. I sent this amount personally to Mr. Bailey in response to his enclosed 
 fetter of March 28th. Since then Mr. Bailey has returned the amount to me, and 
 it is now proper for the company to make this payment. Attach Mr. Bailey's 
 letter to your voucher and merely enclose the draft to him wthout voucher. His 
 enclosed leter will be your voucher. 
 
 Your truly. H. C. PIERCE. 
 
 This is audited by another auditor of the Standard Oil Trust. What a 
 damning letter from Pierce to Gruett, sending Joe Bailey $1750 and charging 
 against legal expenses on account of Texas legislation! What higher proof that 
 Bailey was in the employ of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company as a lobbyist to 
 prevent legislation by the State of Texas against the Waters-Pierce Oil Company? 
 Bailey and Sribbling were lobbying for the Waters-Pierce Oil Trust. And, my 
 fellow citizens, if this letter to Gruett from Pierce, if the letter (lom Bailey to 
 Pierce, could bear any explanation, why did not Bailey and Bailey's friends 
 either procure the attendance of Pierce before the Committee of the Legislature in 
 1907, or why did they not permit that Committee or a sub-committee to hunt out 
 the fugitive H. C. Pierce and com.pel him to swear. J. D. Johnson announced to 
 that commttee, as a representative of Pierce, that if Bailey wanted his testimony, he 
 (Pierce) would come to Texas to give it, notwithstanding he was indicted for a 
 felony ; that is, for. the crime of perjury in connection with the re-admission of the 
 Waters-Pierce Oil Company. H. C. Pierce had been in Texas in 1 900 when 
 he was indicted for a violation of the laws of the State of Texas, along with 
 Rockefeller, Rogers and Flagler, and no harm had come to him then. Why did 
 Bailey want this $1 750 paid to his order "so that it will not be necessary for you 
 to endorse it? " 
 
 Bailey by this letter demonstrates this: He knew his criminal relations with 
 Pierce; he knew that to use this at Gainesville if it bore Pierce's endorsement, 
 would again connect his name with Pierce and with the Waters-Pierce Oil Company; 
 ^^ \vaS interested in perpetuating the nefarious business of that trust in Texas; 
 it was profitable for him to do it, and he was covering up a name that would 
 arouse suspicion again if it should become known to the people. 
 
 In addition to all this, Bailey admitted that the $8000 note was increased to 
 a $24,000 note. He said that Pierce had paid him at other times as much as 
 $30,000 or $40,000; he said that Pierce endorsed his note at one time in New 
 York for $156,000. Notwithstanding these vast sums of money delivered by 
 Pierce, "This Pirate of Pirates," to Joe Bailey, and these enormous accoimodations 
 extended to him by his endorsements, Bailey, and the partizans who follow him. 
 the syconhants who surround him, say that he did not know that the Waters- 
 Pierce Oil Company was a part of the Standard Oil Trust. Bailey cannot deny this 
 in the face of the record. It had been convicted of a violation of the laws against 
 trusts by a jury of Travis County, and the judgment affirmed bv all the Courts. 
 The opinion of the Texas Courts upon this case was o-^en to Bailey for inspection. 
 as well as the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States. As early as 
 September 5, 1899, T. S. Smith, the Attorney General of the State, had written 
 to D. H. Hardy, Secretary of State, a letter in which he says: 
 
 "I wish to say further that if the judgment against the Waters-Pierce Oil 
 Company is affirmed it relates back to June 15, 1897. and it would be very 
 anwise for the State to collect any taxes since that time, and as such judgment 
 finds it to be a trust, it has no standing in this State and ou^ht not to be granted 
 a permit, and should not be in Texas since the date of said jud^rmert. 
 
 Yours truly, (Signed) T. S. SMITH, Attorney General." 
 
 —16— 
 
One of the first thingssubmitted to Joe Bailey by R. L. Henry in May, 1 900» 
 when he was interesting himself in beating down the prosecutions against the 
 Waters-Pierce Oil Company, was a copy of the agreement of the Standard Oil 
 Trust, which was signed by the Waters-Pierce Oil Company. Joe Bailey swore 
 in 1901 that Smith got a copy of the judgment and a statute of Texas, and they 
 examined it. Bob Henry had a thousand pages of incriminating evidence in the 
 Waco cases when Bailey was there. Bob Henry told Joe Bailey that it was a 
 trust. 1 he papers in the office of the Attorney General were all open to Bailey's 
 inspection. All of the testimony taken in the case of the State of Texas vs. 1 he 
 Waters-Pierce Oil Company might have been examined by him. All that Henry had 
 he would have gladly shown to him. There were a thousand avenues open to 
 Bailey to ascertain and know that it was a trust, and yet he hides behind a 
 declaration of Pierce, when confronted with his misdeeds, and wants the honest 
 people of Texas to believe that he was fooled about the character of the Waters- 
 Pierce Oil Company and its contractual relations to the Standard Oil Trust. 
 
 Tom Smith, in the same communication to Hardy, calls his attention to the 
 fact that Pierce, in the trial of that case, had committed perjury when he swore 
 that the captal stock of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company was $ 1 00,000, when it 
 was, in fact, $400,000. This Waters-Pierce Oil Trust not only robbed the 
 people of Texas, but for the pitiful difference between the tax that would be 
 imposed upon a company of $100,000 capital and one of $400,000, its president 
 committed perjury. After calling the attention of the Secretary of State to this 
 matter, Tom Smith says: "I mentioned these facts so that you may see that it 
 could not have been an oversight in stating that its capital stock was $ 1 00,000, 
 when in truth it was $400,000." 
 
 And yet Bailey justifies his conduct against the people of Texas upon what 
 he claims to be the representations of Pierce. In view of all the protestations of 
 R. L. Henry, of Cullen F. Thomas, of T. S. Smith; the i.ispection of the trust 
 agreement; inspection of the records of the judgment, and the whole course of 
 that litigation, will any man say that Joe Bailey ever at any time made an honest 
 effort to inform himself whether this was a trust. Do not all the facts show 
 that he shut his eyes to the fact that it was a trust. He knew it was a trust before 
 he ever saw Pierce or touched his money. He has trampled on the laws of his 
 State, and he has profited by it, and with all of this damning record a^ai^st him, 
 he can yet find persons in Texas — (not sturdy and independent democrats 
 who love their country and their country's honor) — who will listen and applaud his 
 low and vulgar abuse of the people when they cry out against such outrages upon 
 them and the ideals they have always cherished. 
 
 But the Baileyites assert that all of this alleged indebtedness fro-n Bailey to 
 Pierce has been repaid. The record shows just to the contrary. Whatever Pierce 
 gave to Bailey was paid back to Pierce by the Waters-Pierce Oil Co-npany. 
 Whatever was paid direct to Bailey has ;iot been paid back at all. It was all 
 charged to "legal expenses on account of ' 1 exas' cases," and on account of 
 "Texas legislation," and at the expiration of the fiscal year or period it was 
 charged off to profit and loss on the books of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company. 
 There is not a banker or business man, or a man of ordinary intelligence in this 
 audience who does not know that if this money, or any part of it, had in good 
 faih been paid back cither to Pierce or the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, that the 
 books of that Company would have shown that the amount returned or paid 
 back by Joe Bailey had been credited back to proSt and loss. That is to say, if 
 all that had b^en ostensibly loaned to Bailey had been paid back and returned to 
 the treasury after it had been charged off to profit and loss as a "dead one," it 
 would have been credited to the same account, that is, proit and loss credited by 
 amount returned by J. W. Bailey, but no such entry aonears, and Francis has 
 not said, and doubtless cannot say, from what source, whether from Pierce or 
 from the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, or from what black and hidden hand, 
 
 —17— 
 
the $4800 came, with reference to which he was used asa cat's paw for Joe 
 Bailey. 
 
 Now, before we leave this dirty and unseemly phase of this case, let us look 
 to this $1500 charged to Henry 6c Stribling. Now the record shows that Pierce 
 did not authorize a loan to Henry & Stribling, but to Stribling. The record shows, 
 in the letter by Judge Clark, that Stribling was threatening trouble. Take that in 
 connection with the Pierce telegram to Finlay and the payment of that same $1500 
 to Joe Bailey, which was manifestly misapplied and diverted from its intended 
 course, and what do we find in corroboration of these things : 1 hat the Waters- 
 Pierce Oil Company paid to Mr. Stribling $3100 in money in the City of St. 
 Louis, not for Henry &c Stribling, but after this $1500 had miscarried, for Stribling 
 alone to perform this service as lobbyist at Austin in behalf of the Waters-Pierce 
 Oil Company. In other words, after Mr. Stribling was employed to guard the 
 interests of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company at Austin, in connection with Joe 
 Bailey against adverse legislation, we hear no further suggestion of any menace of 
 a receiver on the part of StribHng. Now the record shows that while the firm 
 of Henry & Stribling continued after Henry's election to Congress, there was no 
 division of fees. 
 
 THE CYPHER CODE AND ALDRICH-BAILEY FISCAL MEASURE. 
 
 What would this audience believe if, in addition to the other things in this rec- 
 ord, the cipher code of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company had been found in the 
 possession of Joi'n H. Reagan, Richard Coke or Sam Bell Maxey? As I have 
 been informed, only seven United States Senators have been entr^isled with that 
 secret. These were H. B. Payne, of Ohio; John M. Camden, of West Virginia; 
 Thomas H. Piatt, of New York; Matt Quay, of Pennsylvania; Chauncey Depew, 
 of New York; N. W. Aldrich, of Rhode Island, and Joe Bailey, of Texas. How 
 is it that these, and no more, are amongst the Senators who have been put in pos- 
 bcssion of the secret code of this great trust, clothed with a code which would enable 
 them to converse over the wires the most treasonable plots against the rights of the 
 people, and no man not in possession of the code able to decipher the meaning, while 
 every man in possession of the code would be the lo)'al ally of the trust and the un- 
 failing enemy of the people? 
 
 My fellow citizens, the final, conclusive, indisputable evidence that Joe Bailey is 
 the hired tool of the Standard Oil Trust is demonstrated by the fact, and a fact, too, 
 which he admits, that his name is on the code of this Oil Trust, and that he carried 
 that secret code about with him and kept it in his possession. Whenever men pursue 
 r.ny business which they are not willing to disclose to the public gaze, they inevitably 
 adopt a cipher code. Burglars have their own pet phrases, the meaning of which 
 is known only to themselves. Joe Bailey, in his statement before the Legislature in 
 explanation of his name being on the cipher code fo this Oil Trust, said that all men 
 in private business had a code, and as an illustration he said that every cotton factor 
 had a code. It is true that what is known in commercial parlance as the Cotton 
 Exchange, and all the bucket shops of the United States, have a code, which is in 
 c 1 stant use, and the meaning of which is known only to the persons who conduct 
 the business of raising and lowering the price of cotton and exploiting the farmers 
 who raise it. They pick out some word in New York, say "Howl," for instance; 
 iK-y telegraph it to all the bucket shops in the country, and immediately the price of 
 c tton will go down several points. If they wish to raise it, they will telegraph 
 "Yell," and immediately the price of cotton will rise. The Standard Oil Trust and 
 the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, which are one and the same thing, have their 
 secret codes. One word in this code is "Reprisal," whicb means, in the language of 
 these commercial villains, "At what price are your competitors offering oil?" An- 
 other word is "Reprise," which means "Austin," where the Governor and the At- 
 torney General and all the officers whose duty it is to enforce the law against these 
 trusts reside. Another is "Reproach," which means the Driskill Hotel at Austin. 
 Another is "Republish," which means Joe Bailey. What would the people have 
 
 —18— 
 
thought in 1 888 and 1 889 if John H. Reagan had been on the code of the Stand- 
 ard Oil Trust and the "Waters-Pierce Oil Company as "Republish?" Suppose that 
 F^ierce had sent a dispatch to Reagan addressed "Republish, reproach, reprise, re- 
 prisal?" "What a wound that would have been to the good name of that great 
 statesman and a good man; what a disgrace it would have been to the State of Texas, 
 which for long years had honored him with its greatest offices. Joe Bailey, in ex- 
 planation of this, admitted that there was a code and that his name was on it, and 
 that he carried it, and that his name on the code was "Republish." He said, in 
 excuse, that in order to save telegraph charges they have short names in the place 
 of long ones. There are more letters in "republish" than there are in "Bailey." 
 There are nine letters in "republish," there are six in "Bailey." He says, moreover, 
 that he frequently used the code himself about Mr. Pierce's private business. If he 
 ever used this code upon Mr. Pierce's pri\ate business it could have only been used 
 in connection with the Standard Oil Irust and the "Waters-Pierce Oil Company's 
 business. Imagine a Senator of Texas sending a telegram to a Standard Oil mag- 
 nate giving the political conditions in Texas and signing his name "Republish!" If 
 anything else was wanting to make out a case against Joe Bailey to show that since 
 I 900 he has been in the ser\ice of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, this code is all 
 sufficient. This is not all. Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, of Rhode Island, is oirc of 
 the Standard Oil Senators of the United States. His daughter married the son of 
 John D. Rockefeller, the great Standard Oil magnate;; he is a Republican and chair- 
 m.an of a committee on finance in the United States Senate which has char c of all 
 the financial and fiscal operations of the United States government. Bailey is a 
 Democratic member of the same committee. The name of each of these men is on 
 the secret code of the S'andard Oil Trust. When any legislation is pending which 
 threatens, even remotely, 'he interests of the Standard Oil 1 rust, or any of its aux- 
 iliaiy corporations, Aldr:ch and Bailey are in a position, through the use of this 
 secret code, to inform Rockefeller, Archibold, Rogers or Pierce of what is pending. 
 Bai'ey could send a telegram warning them of any tnreatening danger and si m his 
 name "Republish" and escape all detection. Rockefeller, Archbold, Ro :crs or 
 Pierce can wire Bailey under the address of "Republish" and enlighten him as to 
 what legislation they desire, or put him on guard as to any contemplated legislation 
 that might be adverse to their interests. 
 
 If the people of Texas, with full knowledce of these facts, desire to retain Joe 
 Bailey in the United States Senate, then they have lost the capacity of self s:o em- 
 inent and should no longer boast that they are free, unpurchaseable American 
 citizens. 
 
 In illustration of the above facts and as a demonstration of Joe Bailey's serv itude 
 to the Standard Oil Trust and the "interests," sometimes called the "money power," 
 let us look briefly to a bill irtroduced into the Senate on February 9, 1903, by N. W. 
 Aldrich, a Senator from Rhode Island, and the acknowledged leader of the money 
 power in that au?ust body. This bill, numbered 7301, "to further provide for the 
 .safe keeping of public money and for other purposes," was on the same day referred 
 to the Committee on Finance. Aldrich ard Joe Bailey were bv th on this committee, 
 and misht both be relied upon so far as the "interests" were oncerned, and so on 
 the 1 1 th day of February, two days after its introduction into the Senate, Aldrich, 
 b\ direction of the Committee on Finance, reported the bill back with amendments 
 and fa^e notice of his intention to press the consideration of the bill. He attennpted 
 to call it up on the I 4th day of February', and finally got it to the front on the 24th. 
 That part of the bill which had in view "the safe keeping of the public money " was 
 a scheme to transfer about $400,000,000 from the locked and guarded \aults of 
 the United States treasury, and from the custody of the bonded officers of the United 
 States, into the vaults of certain national banks, which banks were to be designated 
 by the Secretary of the Treasury at his discretion, and were to be known as Govern- 
 ment Depositories. These pets and favorites were to be the financial agents of the 
 government. How many national banks were to be named as depositories — in what 
 
 —19— 
 
State they were to be located— how much of the people's money (already collected 
 as taxes and on hand) should be allotted to each one of the favored national banks- 
 was left to the discretion of one man, the Secretary of the Treasury. The other 
 pumoses" named in the bill was to provide the kind of security these favored na- 
 liona! banks were to give for the money deposited and loaned to them by the Secre- 
 tary. The collateral named consisted of bonds of the United States ; bonds or other 
 interest bearing obligations of any State; bonds of any city in the United States 
 which has been in existence as a city for twenty-five years, and which for the last 
 ten years has not defaulted in the payment of any part of its debt, principal or 
 interest, and which has more than 50,000 inhabitants by the last census reported, 
 and whose net indebtedness does not exceed ten per cent of the assessed value of its 
 property; also railroad bonds. The further discretion was conferred on the Sec- 
 retary to require additional securities from these favored national banks, and author- 
 ized him to change the character of the securities already on deposit. These favored 
 national banks were to pay interest on the deposits of not less than one and one-half 
 per cent a year. This, in substance, was the scheme. It involved a co-partnership 
 in the national banking business between the government and certain favored national 
 banks to be designated by a Republican Secretary of the Treasury. The govern- 
 ment was to furnish about $400,000,000 upon which it was to receive one and 
 one-half per cent interest a year. The national banks selected were to furnish the 
 experience and were to have all the profits above the one and one-half per cent in- 
 terest. No State bank, no co-partnership, no individual, no corporation created by 
 any State could get any part of this $400,000,000 at one and one-half per cent 
 interest, or at all. National banks, and only such of these as had the favor of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, could get any part of this money. If the people, or any 
 of them, wanted to borrow for use any of this money they must go to the favored 
 national banks, put up security or collateral, pay the ruling rates of interest of six, 
 eiaht, ten, or even a higher rate, for the use of the money taken from them as taxes 
 and loaned by the government to a lot of pet national banks. Can any man imagine 
 if this scheme had gone through how much of this $400,000,000 would have been 
 taken by the national banks, established and maintained on the money of the Stand- 
 ard Oil Trust, Rockefeller, Flagler, Rogers, Harriman, Hill and others? Joe 
 Bailey and Aldrich both knew when they advocated this bill that the government 
 was heavily in debt and was paying a much greater interest than the one and one-half 
 per cent they were proposing to loan this money to the pet national banks for. Let 
 us see what Democratic Senators thought of this Aldrich-Bailey fiscal measure — it 
 was named a fiscal measure by Bailey. 
 
 Senator Berry, of Arkansas, said on the floor of the Senate: "Mr. -President, 
 I say it is an everlasting shame and disgrace to this country that we should collect 
 year by year millions of dollars in the way of taxes from the people and then turn 
 around and vote to loan it out, if you will, to a few favored banks at one and one-half 
 per cent for them to loan it to other people at whatever interest they can secure." 
 This same Senator says: "I do not know; it may be that I am wrong, but if i have 
 learned one thing more than another of Democracy and the belief of the Democratic 
 party, it has always been, from the days of Jefferson and Jackson down to the present 
 lime, that we stood for the equality of all people before the law, and that we stood 
 in absolute and unalterable opposition to any law that conferred special privileges 
 upon one class which would not be extended to all other classes." 
 
 Senator Turner said: "I regard this bill as absolutely indefensible on any 
 proper principles of government and as extending the grossest kind of favoritism to 
 a class in this country who have already been too highly favored by the laws of the 
 United States, and as being extremely indiscreet and inconvenient in the result which 
 it will bring upon this country. I venture to say that if we enter upon this policy 
 of loaning out the money of the government to any individuals of any class or char- 
 acter, the time will never come when this government will feel justified in calling these 
 moneys in." 
 
 -2(0— 
 
Senator Blackburn said: "I stand upon the proposition here asserted and not 
 denied, that the purpose of this bill is to loan the money of the American people, 
 wrung out of the pockets of the taxpayers by a system of taxation conceded to be 
 too high, which the party in power refuses to reduce, and say that they will "stand 
 pat" and refuse to reduce a single schedule — the purpose is to take this tax-wrung 
 money that belongs to the American people and the producing class and loan it to 
 somebody at a rate of interest below the least rate of interest the government is pay- 
 ing on any bond that it has on earth." 
 
 Senator Teller said: "Mr. President, is the system a good one which puts in 
 the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury- the power to discriminate in favor of one 
 class of banks, which may be controlled by his political adherents, against those 
 vv^hom he may regard as his political opponents? Is it a good system which enables 
 the Secretary of the Treasury to say that Eastern securities shall be favored against 
 Western securities, and that he will put these deposits all east of the Alleghanies or 
 West of the Alleghanies if he happens to think that better?" 
 
 We could quote to like effect from every Democratic Senator who participated 
 in the debate on this- undemocratic measure. While Bailey has boasted over Texas 
 that he is a party man and stood always with his party, it is a notable fact that when 
 the opinion and interest of his party and party associates came in conflict with the 
 interests and desires of the Standard Oil Trust and the money power and the pur- 
 pose of the Republicans to force the government into an unequal and disastrous co- 
 partnership with favorite national banks, Bailey, of all the Democrats in the Senate, 
 was found alone lined up with the Republicans, and in his zeal to promote the cause 
 and interests of the money power he charges filibustering against his own col- 
 leagues. But are we to wonder at this when Bailey during this debate had come 
 fresh from the turmoils of Wall Street where he had been engaged in exploit- 
 ing the Kirby Lumber Company and its millions, and had become inoculated 
 with the ideas of high finance and fraud that flourish so abundantly 
 there? Need we wonder that in the final struggle over this bill Bai- 
 ley's vote was found recorded along with the votes of Aldrich, Quay, 
 Depew, Piatt, and every other trust Republican in the Senate of the United 
 States. In support of this undemocratic measure Aldrich and Quay, Bailey, Depew, 
 and Piatt, each of them then having concealed about his person the cypher code of 
 the W.-P. O. Co., stood shoulder to shoulder, with locked shields under the 
 banner of special privilege graft and greed, and warred upon the Democratic mi- 
 nority of the Senate. My fellow citizens, I want you to know that in that contest 
 in the Senate in March, 1903, every Democratic Senator stood by the teachings of 
 Jeiferson, Jackson, Van Buren and Tilden, and the history of the Democratic party, 
 and opposed that infamous bill except Joe Bailey. I want you to know that in that 
 same winter Joe Bailey was in New York in the sersice of the Kirby Lumber Com- 
 pany, and Kirby pretending to make a lawyer's fee of over $200,000, and that he 
 was carrying the secret cypher code of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company. Will the 
 patriotic Democrats of Texas submit to this? 
 
 BAILEY'S CONNECTION WITH KIRBY'S COMPANIES. 
 
 Now let us look briefly at his connection with the Kirby Lumber Company cird 
 the Houston Oil Company. Both of these corporations are the outcome of mod- 
 em ideas of high finance. They are models of the exploitation of greed and get- 
 rich-quick schemes. They are both bottomed on lands in East Te^as, slipped from 
 under the unsuspecting owners there, and exploited in the shape of stock and bonds 
 on unsuspecting purchasers in the East. By some contrivance they stand at the 
 he'd of the lumber trust, and through the direction of Joe Bailey they have been 
 u..uer the protection of a federal court, by injunctions and receiverships since 
 1903. Organized on wind and exploited on "wall paper" — whica Kirby says 
 means Houston Oil Company stock in the treasury. Under the direction of a 
 federal court reciver they made about two million dollars profits by trust methods 
 last year. This money was taken from the home builders and house improvers of 
 
 —21— 
 
this country. Joe Bailey has aided and abetted this conspiracy and has never 
 raised his voice against it. And yet he says he loves the people and has given the 
 best yeaiS of his life to the preservation of their interests. Can impudent hypocrisy 
 
 go further? i • l j 
 
 Kirby says that Pat Calhoun of New York was to finance this scheme and 
 that he embezzled four million dollars of the "wall-paper" stock of the Houston 
 Oil Company. This is the same Pat Cal'.ioun who is now under indictment in San 
 Fiancisco for graft and bribery of public officials and the pillaging of^ the public 
 treasury th^— and the disgrace of the servants of the people. Well, "birds of a 
 feather flock Logether." It is Kirby, Calhoun, Bailey, or Bailey, Calhoun. Kirby. 
 When ve contemplate their sympathy for the toiling masses, their yearning for the 
 public welfare, we feel like singing that good old song, "What wondrous love is 
 this, O my soul?" 
 
 Kirby employed Bailey in November, 1902, as his attorney anc. attorney for 
 th? Kirby Luniber Company. For eightsen months Kirby and Bailey were both 
 very busy men in New York, and so was Pat Calhoun. After BaiUy got into the 
 pot then Pierce came in, and then it was Kirby, Calhoun, Pierce and Bailey — the 
 Big Four. 
 
 This opened up a new source of revenue to Joe. His fees grew and grew and 
 grew. Then they opened the charmed circle again and took in the Frisco people, 
 and fes took another upward bound, and they say that in a few months Joe Bailey 
 made two hundred and twenty-five thousmd dollars, by borrowing money from 
 Pierce and getting Houston Oil Company "wall-paper" stock from Pat Calhoun. 
 You will remember when Joe Bailey was in Congress he went across into Virnnia 
 to make a speech before some college, and on pay day refused to receive his salary 
 as Congressman for the time he wai j jsent from his seat, proclaiming in a dem- 
 agogic way that the people paid him tor all of his time and were entitled to his un- 
 interrupted service. When he got into his new trust service, this new combmation, 
 he practically abandoned his legislative duties and spent most of his time in the win- 
 ters of 1902 and 1903 at the Waldorf-Astoria and 26 Broadway, New York. 
 From the middle of January, 1 903, to the last days of February of that year, 
 his name was not recorded in a single aye and no vote taken in the Senate. He 
 was rich then and was -"Umg richer all the time. Why did he take his salary 
 for this time misspent to the dishonor of his State? He was living in the atmos- 
 phere of high finance and fraud. He had surely imbibed the prevalent opinion of 
 this small, unscrupulous gang of trust millionaires and their sycophantic strikers and 
 tools — "the public be damned." He took all he could get from the government and 
 all he could get from the trusts and then told the people they were entitled to only 
 half of his time -jn full pay for all of his time! What other man in public life has 
 ever made such an audacious, unscrupulous announcement as this? From the days 
 of Jefferson till now no Democrat has ever asserted such corrupting doctrine as this. 
 If Bailey may do these things why not Senator Culberson and your sixteen members 
 in Congress? Imagine all of them engaged as Bailey has ben and is now and as 
 he says will continue to be, and you all know that Texas would become a cerspool 
 of political degredation and dishonor. No free man could, without a blush of shame, 
 claim it as his home. 
 
 Joe Bailey got back to Washington in the last days of February. He was just 
 
 in time to see Cooper's port of entry measure defeated by Senator Mason of Illinois. 
 
 Th)3 was a fight between John W. Gates on one side, and Kirby, Pierce and the 
 
 Jrrisco Railroad on the other. In this fight he was in an awful fix. It was a case 
 
 "How happy I'd be with either of these 
 
 Were the other dear charmer away." 
 
 Gates thought he had him fixed, but Gates, like Pierce, dodged the process serv- 
 
 e'-s and fled the State to keep from telling what he knew about this. Gates at one 
 
 time held Bailey's note for $28, 1 00. Bailey says this orio-inated in something about 
 
 a "horse trade." Is it possible that so wise a man as Bailey can .lOt tell the differ- 
 
 —22— 
 
ence between a "horse trade" and a game of stud poker? What will Gates swear 
 about this? Pierce also ran. He took to foreign countries and the high seas. "When 
 Hadley, the Attorney General of Missouri, was after Pierce, it was known that 
 Pierce would evade all process and refuse to swear until after the primaries in Texas 
 and until after the State convention. Pierce and the interests wanted their friend 
 Bailey back in the Senate for six years. They wanted him to be the coadjutor of 
 Aldrich, the father-in-law of Rockefeller, Jr., the pious inheritor of millions of dis- 
 honest gains. 
 
 Bailey got $2500 from the Standard Oil Company direct for a fee. How and 
 when did he get acquainted with that old he-grafter, the father of all the trusts? 
 Bailey's wisdom had preceded him and what the Standard Oil Company really 
 wanted to find out from him was whether it was a trust and could do business in 
 Texas. He says "I told them it was, and they paid me $2500 in cash for the in- 
 formation." Right at this point Rockefeller fell on Roger's brisket and wept, be- 
 cause Bailey, the smart man, did not live in New York to tell them something new 
 and wise every day. 
 
 Now, Bayne, President of the Seaboard National Bank, and in oil up to his 
 eyes for forty years past, must have heard of this wise man from the South, and 
 Bayne wanted a fifty dollar charter written, and Bailey says, a mortgage. All this 
 for the Security Oil Company, and Bayne the President of the Standard Oil Bank 
 and himself a part of the Standard OilTrust, gives $5,000.00 to do this work. 
 Bailey is handling a Tennessee railr oad and coal company for Pierce, Frances, 
 et als, and is negotiating with Harriman. From this he expects a fee so large that 
 he would not tell how much. 
 
 A Nashville paper says Bailey is engineering a scheme to beat the city of 
 Nashville out of $1,800,000.00, that boodle is being distributed about Nashville 
 where is will do the most good, and that Harriman is to get the road by a fore- 
 closure. 
 
 And yet, my fellow citizens, Joe Bailey said at Waco in 1900, August 9: 
 "Now, fellow citizens, do we as democrats of Texas believe that we have fallen 
 so low as to elect a senator who sells his services to the corporations? I do not 
 believe that the time will ever come when Texas will make that mistake." 
 
 What a statement! How like the man whose whole record is embellished by 
 fair speech and disgraced by infamous performances? 
 
 My fellow citizens, when Joe Bailey was indulging the luxury on the floor of 
 the Senate, on a question of personal privilege in reply to the article of Mr. Phillips 
 on the "Treason of the Senate," published in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, amongst 
 other things he said that a man who would tell a lie would swear a lie. Let us ex- 
 amine Mr. Bailey just for a little while on this proposition. He caused to be sent 
 from Dallas, Texas, on June 24, 1900, a special to the St. Louis Republic, in 
 which the reporter says: 
 
 He (Bailey) makes the following statement of how he happened to make this 
 big land trade (referring to the Gibbs ranch) : "Former Governor David R. Fran- 
 cis, of Missouri, and Congressman Joseph C. Sibley, of Pennsylvania, are among 
 my closest and most appreciated friends. Mr. Francis and Mr. Sibley have often 
 urged me during the last five years to look more closely after my material interests and 
 those of my family, even though I should have to retire from public life to do 
 so. I have never had an absorbing desire to make money or accumulate property. 
 The public service has had a strong facination for me, and I believe I have been 
 of som benefit to my country in that connection, but Mr. Sibley and Mr. Francis 
 firallv impressed me with their advice, and I told them plainly about Gov. Gibbs' 
 ranch, which he had suggested h€ would like to sell to me. I said to them: "If 
 you gentlemen are interested in my business welfare, buy me that farm; let me 
 remit and pay you as I can. 1 hey took me at my word and the papers are 
 all ready now for filing in the Dallas County courthouse. The deed will be placed 
 on record to-morrow or next day. The consideration given Gov. Gibbs is $80,- 
 
 —23— 
 
000 in cash and 2 1 .000 acres of land on the Pecos River, about 500 miles west 
 of Dallas. Messrs. Francis and Sibley allow me thirty years in which to pay the 
 debt I owe them. I shall dispose of the interest I have in a stock farm near Lex- 
 ington, Kentucky, and engage in raising blooded horses and grain crops out on 
 Grapevine." 
 
 1 his is the voluntary statement of Bailey, made presumably to a personal and 
 political friend who would do him no injustice. Is this statement true? Francis 
 says: "I talked with him (Bailey) a nunber of times about his affairs and told 
 him that he had a great future before him. that he ought to attend strictly to his 
 legislative duties and let his horses and everything else alone, that he could keep 
 up his law practice, and from time to time manifested, as I said, an interest in his 
 welfare and his future." 
 
 Now, can any man r roncile what Francis says under oath with what Bailey 
 dictated to the reporter of the Republic? More than this, when Bailey testified 
 before the Investigating Committee of the 27th Legislature, he set out an itemized 
 account of the Gibbs transaction, which he swore was true, and there is not a 
 single proDosition in his testimony there ihat does not contradict his voluntary state- 
 ment. What, then, becomes, fellow citizens, of BAILEY'S PROPOSITION 
 THAT A MAN ';^HO WILL TELL A LIE WILL SWEAR TO IT? If 
 time permitted, a vast number of incidents of this kind could be presented against 
 the veracious Bailey, but we pass from this to graver matters. 
 
 In a speech ma^de by Joe Bailey before the Waco Convention, August 9, 1 900, 
 he used this language: "Now, fellow citizens, do we as Democrats of Texas be- 
 lieve that time will ever come when Texas will make the mistake of electing a Sen- 
 ator who will sell his services to the corporations?" When Bailey made that 
 announcement he had in his pocket $4800 paid by the Waters-Pierce Oil 
 Company, which sum was audited and allowed by the Waters-Pierce Oil Com- 
 pany a-^d bv the Standard Oil Trust. Subsequent to that and prior to the conven- 
 ing of the Thirtieth Legislature in 1907, he received, by his own admission, $2500 
 from the Standard Oil Company, and from another dependency of the Standard Oil 
 Trust $5,000, and from other corporations, from then until now the testimony 
 shows that he has received from $35,000 to $40,000 for services rendered to 
 them; $225,000 from the Kirby Lumber Company and John Henry Kirby; at 
 least $Z 5 0,000 either already received or in anticipation from the Tennessee Rail- 
 road transaction, and other large sums of money, always under the guise and in the 
 nanie of a lawyer, without ever appearing in the court house or before a judge. 
 but always doing his work by secret and circuitous methods, not only unknown to the 
 people of Texas, but actually concealed from them until these transactions had 
 ben erposed by other men or proven before the Investigating Committee of the Thir- 
 tieth Le^^islature by other witnesses. 
 
 My f-'llow citizens, since Jefferson announced upon his elevation to the presidency 
 that he would en<?age in no basines.. and do no act to increase his private fortune 
 durin-^ his incumbency of that great office, we have believed that to abstain from 
 questionable speculation and to abstain from all complications with trusts, monopo- 
 lies and "the interests" that did or might come before the National Legislature or 
 any State Le-^islature, or even the courts of the country, or the people, was one of 
 the peculiar ideals of the Democratic party, and it is true that the conduct of all 
 our Senators and of all our Governors has eminently justified such belief. We have 
 been acclIs^o^^ed to attribute questionable and shady methods to certain members of 
 the Republican party. Blaine in his Mulligan letters; Quay in his raids upon the 
 treasury of the State of Pennsylvania, and all of the methods he pursued; Piatt, De- 
 pew and others — concern us only as regrettable instances of political depravity and 
 a renunciation of the high standard of official integrity to which the Democratic 
 party has always stood pledged. But in view of the indisputable evidence against 
 Joe Bail'^y we can no longer point to this as an unbroken tradition and lofty, ideal 
 of Democracy, nor dare we say that in this behalf vr^ue rests with the Demo- 
 cratic party alone. 
 
When Senator Knox, of Pennsylvania, was employed to make an investigation 
 of the methods of the Equitable Life Insurance Company, and had completed his 
 labors and crowned them with a learned, accurate and forceful report, there was 
 enclosed to him as compensation for his ser\ices a check for $25,000. This he re- 
 turned, stating that he was a United States Senator from the State of Pennsylvania, 
 and that the people who elected him to that great office were entitled to every mo- 
 ment of his time and every effort he could make in their behalf; that he had per- 
 formed this service, (distinguished and accurate as it was), for his peopL-, and had 
 not asked nor could receive compensation beyond the consciousness of duty per- 
 formed, with no expectation of any reward except the approval of the plain peo- 
 ple whom he had served in respect to this business. 
 
 John C. Spooner, of Wisconsin, one of the greatest lawyers in the United 
 States Senate, and the peer of Senator Knox, stated in his letter to the Governor of 
 Wisconsin resigning his position as Senator: "I have served as Senator for six- 
 teen years, a long time for one neither willing nor financially able permanently to 
 abandon the practice of the law and be taken from his profession. I have been 
 taken from mine, for I have not thought it compatible with the '^ull and uninter- 
 rupted discharge of public duty to pursue it, and I have, therefor--, during my en- 
 tire service, with two or three trifling exceptions, purely local, absolutely abstained 
 from the practice of law." 
 
 Be it said to the credit of this great man, that only a short time before he re- 
 signed he declined a fee of $30,000 because he could not undertake the work 
 without leaving his duties in the Senate unattended to. True to the 
 instincts of all right thinking Americans, he laid down the great office of Senator 
 and entered the practice of his profession in the City of New York, willing to 
 take his chances on earning legitimate fees and acquiring wealth without the facti- 
 tious aid and support of a great office, which he must abuse if he pursued the meth- 
 ods followed by Joe Bailey. 
 
 Now, during all these years of his ser ice to these trusts and corporations he 
 was in the employ of the people at a stipulated salary of $5000 a year and certain 
 rich perquisites. If you will look at the figures you will see that the money re- 
 ceived from the trusts, the monopolies and the "interests" was his principal busi- 
 ness, while his service to the people was but a "side line." How do these facts 
 contrast with the bold and fraudulent declaration he made in the Waco Convention 
 in 1900? The miserable investigation of 1901 had not then occurred; the par- 
 tisan and abortive investigation of 1907 had not then been dreamed of, and the 
 real facts in that investigation are to-day, unfortunately for the people, unpublished. 
 Whose fault is this, that the record, meagre as it is, should be withheld from the 
 inspection of all the people, while this roan, Joe Bailey, traverses all of Texas, de- 
 nouncing men, all the citizens of Texas, who distrust his integrity and who clamor 
 for protection of the honor of the State? 
 
 BAILEY, THE GUILTY POLITICIAN, CRIES "CONSPIRACY." 
 Against the men who criticise him he has been audacious enourh to cry out 
 that it is a conspiracy on the part of his enemies; first, it is instigated by Hearst; 
 next by the Standard Oil Trust; next, by the railroads; next by ambitious men who 
 want his place. This is no new cry. It has been the cry of the guilty politician in 
 all the past. Clark, of Montana, who unblushingly bought a seat in the United 
 States Senate, announced that he was the victim of a conspiracy instigated by Mar- 
 cus Daly, and then from man to man. Reuff, Calhoun, (the last of whom Bailey 
 has been pitted against, they say), under indictment in the City of San Francisco, cry 
 out that they are the victims of a conspiracy. John Hiople Mitchell, the con- 
 victed Senator from Oregon, cried conspiracy. The pitiful Senator from Nebraska, 
 who trafficked in postoffices for a commission before he was sworn in, and escaped 
 conviction on the ground that he was not a Senator until sworn in, cried "conspir- 
 acy." Joe Bailey had the audacity to charge conspiracy against R. V. Davidson, 
 Attorney General of the State of Texas, because in the discharge of a duty Da- 
 
 —25— 
 
vidson was constrained to institute a suit against the Waters-Pierce Oil Company 
 to drive it from Texas and recover penalties. Bailey said this was a reflection on 
 him and a political scheme to besmirch his reputation. Since Bailey made that 
 charge the suit has been tried, this conscienceless offender convicted and a fine of 
 $1,629,850 assessed against it for depredations committed on the people of Texas 
 under the direct and immediate protection of Joe Bailey for the last six years. 
 
 More than this, fellow citizens, when this charge was made Davidson de- 
 manded of the Legislature an investigation, and offered himself to appear and an- 
 swer any charge, while Bailey had a majority o. his partisans in the Legislature and 
 had an opportunity to prove any allegations of conspiracy or wrong doing against 
 R. V. Davidson, they, in a cowardly manner, backed away from it and denied to 
 your Attorney General an opportunity before a legislative committee of Joe Bailey's 
 selection to demonstrate his innocence of any offenses against any man or his country. 
 
 What proof has Bailey offered to the country to show a conspiracy against him? 
 Is every patriot in this State who resents an act that means dishonor tc 'ms country 
 and shame to his fellow citizens a conbpirator? Is Joe Bailey of sufficient im- 
 portance to seal the lips of any honesi .nan against his treasonable practices against 
 the public policy of the State of Texas, its dignity and its honor? Must the At- 
 torney General of Texas get permission from Joe Bailey to bring a suit against the 
 Waters-Pierce Oil Company or any other dishonest trust for its frauds and offenses 
 against the laws of Texas — must Joe Bailey dictate the scope of the allegations in 
 the petition and limit the course of the evidence simply because he was fraudulently 
 mixed up with the re-admission of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company into the State, 
 and because a disclosure of his conn'^ction with this trust would reflect upon his in- 
 tegrity as a man and an officer? Is not this the limit of "bossism," and, if Da- 
 vidson had yielded to it, would not his surrender have been the limit of shame? 
 
 BAILEY'S TREASON IN THE RATE BILL FIGHT. 
 
 Again, my fellow citizens, we charge that i-^ Bailey's long public service he has 
 never done or accomplished anything for the real good of the people of this coun- 
 try. We charge that some of his most laborious and learned efforts have been made 
 in behalf of "the intersts." When the policy of the president to enlarge the pow- 
 ers of the Interstate Commerce Commission, in the creation of which the learned 
 and venerable John H. Reagan took such an active and prominent part; when all 
 the country knew that the purpose of the President to have further legislation could 
 not be thwarted, it then became the purpose of "the interests" if by any trickery- 
 in legislation they could, to incorporate into this measure a provision that would ren- 
 der it unconstitutional, which would require a number of years for the courts finally 
 to determine and pass upon it. In that contest Joe Bailey offered an amendment 
 in substance that no order of the Interstate Commerce CommiiJon should be set 
 aside or suspended by preliminary or interlocutory decree or order of any court or 
 judge. He pressed this with great learning, upon a lot of antiquated authorities, 
 stuffed into him by a Dallas lawyer of better parts than Joe Bailey has. If "the 
 interests" could inject into this bill an unconstitutional provision, it would lead to 
 long and vexatious litigation — to a suspension by injunction cf all control over the 
 railroads, pending the determination of that question; it would have filled the courts 
 of the country with vexatious Htigation, and would have wearied the souls of the 
 people. Joe Bailey, in support of his amendment, undertook to say, that judicial 
 power and jurisdiction were one and the same thing, and that it was competent 
 for Congress to destroy the right of the courts to determine that which had always 
 been a judicial question. If he had succeeded in incorporating this into that bill it 
 would have been a treasonable act against our form of government, which is divided, 
 by the Constitution, into legislative, executive and judicial departments. He would 
 have destroyed the one to gratify, first, little men without information, whose preju- 
 dices would lead them to any rash and inconsiderate legislation that would appear 
 harsh against the railroad companies of the country. He would have played 
 
 —26— 
 
into the hands of the "interests" and the desires of the "interests," as represented by 
 the railroad Senators, by incorporating into the law a provision that would have 
 rendered it nugatory and void. 
 
 Senator Culberson, speaking of that matter, said: "I d(sire to say now that if 
 the bill undertakes affirmatively to limit or deny the_ constitutional right of review, 
 that pro\ision of the bill would be void, alt'noush the other part of the act might stand 
 and be effective." And Mr. Culberson further said: "Under the constitution, Mr. 
 President, persons may no more be deprived temporarily of their properly without 
 due process of law or for public use without just compensation, than they may be 
 deprived of it permanently." Mr. Culberson recognized as binding upon him, and 
 upon all of us, the provision of the constitution of the United States, and of all 
 the States, that no man's property could be taken, destroyed, or applied to public 
 use, without just compensation being first made, and that this just compensation has 
 always been a judicial question to be determined and settled by the courts. 
 
 Bailey, as we charge, in the service of the "interests," proposed to destroy this 
 by striking down the jurisdiction of all courts — not only the jurisdiction, but the ju- 
 dicial power of all courts to avert such unlawful taking by the issuance of an injunc- 
 tion. 
 
 My fellow citizens, we can not deny the protection guaranteed by the Consti- 
 tution to all men, even to offending monopolies, aggressive railroads and conscience- 
 less trusts, without endangering our own safety. Upon whose judgment would it 
 be safest to rely upon a question like this — ^Senator Culberson or Joe Bailey? 
 
 Senator Culberson was the Attorney General of your State when your Com- 
 mission law was enacted; Hogg was the Governor. They both took an active part 
 in the study and in the preparation of that bill. Culberson defended it through 
 four years in all the courts of the country when he was Attorney General, with a 
 distinguished ability and a marked learning. Himself a party defendant to the suit 
 against John H. Reagan, who was the head of your Railroad Commission, he ex- 
 plored every avenue for judicial information. Sometimes defeated, but never dis- 
 couraged, he established before the Supreme Court of the United States the right 
 of a State through a commission to fix and establish reasonable rates by the in- 
 strumentality of a commission — the Texas Commission. He did not and could not 
 establish the ritht to make these rates so close and binding upon the transportation 
 companies that they could not seek relief in the courts against them if they appeared 
 to the railroad companies to be confiscatory of their property, or to demand ^ 
 service for which they were not to receive a just compensation. Not only in this 
 case, but in every case that has been before the Supreme Court, which, permit me 
 to say, is the most august judicial tribunal on earth, the right of appeal to the 
 courts under the law of the land has n< ver been s' aken. More than this, when 
 Culberson passed from the office of Attor ey General he became Governor of 
 Texas, and f^i lOur more years was inte ested in th.^, enforcement of your commis- 
 sion law. It became his duty, and he did keep fully abreast with the march of 
 the people through their legislatures and through their courts to control railway- 
 corporations and to enforce a just and e 'uitable and a fair treatment of the people. 
 Culberson took the ripe experience of eigh years, gathered from an actual contact 
 with this identical question, into the Senate of the United States with him. And 
 when this matter in behalf of "the interests," and to thwart the efforts of the 
 honest and earnest men who desired a reasonable and fair control, was up, he voted 
 against it, nor did he vote alone. Culberson, Bacon of Georeia, Daniel of Vir- 
 ginia, Morgan and Pettus of Alabama, al voted against the Bailey-Tillman amend- 
 ment. 
 
 WAS BAILEY VINDICATED BY THE THIRTIETH LEGISLATURE? 
 "Joe Bailey has boasted all over this State that he was triumphantly vindi- 
 cated by the Thirtieth Legislature. He had no opposition and was backed by a 
 primary endorsement and a convention nomination, both of which were fraudulently 
 obtained by a concealment of facts then well known to Joe Bailey, but largely if 
 
 —27— 
 
not entirely unknown to his constituents. There were eighty-eight votes for him. 
 Twenty-one of this number voted for him because they thought he was the nomi- 
 nee, not because they thought him fit for the office. There were forty-three votes 
 against him. He seems not to know the difference between an acquittal by the unani- 
 mous vote of twelve men and a hung jury. 
 
 "Bailey never has, never can and never will fairly and honestly discuss the facts 
 of this case. No advocate and no apolozist of Bailey can ever do it. Fairly 
 considered, his record is wholly indefensible. He says that no man who opposes 
 or criticiese him shall ever fill an office in Texas. We say that no man who 
 advates or apologizes for Bailey or Bailey methods, shall ever fill an office in Texas 
 by our votes. 
 
 "And so the issue is made. We think that in a free Republic it is the duty 
 of every man to think for himself and vote for his country's good. We think that 
 Baileyism means bossism. We think that it is supported by the professional poli- 
 ticians, the grafters, and the hirelings of the trusts and "interests," all of whom are 
 at continual war with the plain people. We believe that Joe Bailey belongs to 
 these unholy combinations and that his continuance in office for a single day is 
 against the honor and ideals of the Democratic party, and of all the people of 
 Texas without regard to party. 
 
 "We have no fear of the rogues' gallery, for whenever the painter puts that 
 on canvas we know that Joe Bailey will head the herd, without any change of his 
 marks and brands. 
 
 "We know that there are some little squirrel-headed fellows in this country, 
 who boast (because they have nothing else to boast of), that they were born a 
 Democrat, were nurtured on Democratic milk from a Democratic mother's breast, 
 and would always vote for the nominee, though they knew him to be a thief, as 
 long as he was out of the penitentiary. We trust we hold to higher ideals of the 
 obligations of our citizenship then this. If you want us to kneel and worship, you 
 must point us to God. If you want us to vote for a nominee, you must give us 
 His noblest work — an honest man — to vote for. Not only that, but even the honest 
 man must stand for principles and policies promotive of the public welfare and pro- 
 tective of public honor. 
 
 "Don't you think, my fellow citizens, that it were just as well to be born 
 a baby and grow up an independent, thinking, and self-reliant man, with some 
 regard at least for the public welfare, for common decency and the honor of your 
 State and people." 
 
 JOE BAILEY DEFEATS A FULL INVESTIGATION AND SUPPRESS- 
 ES TESTIMONY. 
 
 Joe Bailey ought not to expect the people of Texas to take his uncorroborated 
 word for every thing in this case and upon his word to discredit every disinterested 
 witness in the matter who has testified against him. In considering Joe Bai- 
 ley's contradictory and untrue state nents in reference to all of these 
 transactions, will not the people of Texas, in accordance with the well estab- 
 lished rules of evidence, consider the direct persona! interests Joe Bailey has in all 
 of these matters? Will they not consider the temptation to him to color, pervert 
 and withhold the facts? Will they not consider his failure to produce any letter, 
 telegram or paper in corroboration of his statements? Will they not look to all 
 of these things in determining to what extent, if at all, Joe Bailey is worthy of 
 credit? Finally, will they not consider that any witness who is deliberately false in 
 one thing must be considered false in all, and that the strongest presumptions of 
 guilt are to be indulged against a party who suppresses testimony and secretes 
 or runs off witnesses. If it is true that a man who will tell a lie 
 will swear a lie, how much force is added to this frailty of human na- 
 ture when the man upon the stand is defending a reputation from which he 
 boasts he had an opportunity to make no only the legitimate salary of an office, but 
 thousands and tens of thousands, yes, hundreds of thousands of dollars by serving 
 
 —28— 
 
trusts and monopolies engaged in war upon the people. It is hardly to be expected 
 tnat two men engaged in an unlawful enterprise will disagree in respect to the 
 transaction which speaks the shame of both, but it sometimes happens. It was in the 
 power of Bailey to have produced Pierce here , to have produced Bayne here, to 
 have produced the men in the Standard Oil Company, with whom he made a 
 $2500 fee, to have corroborated what he has stated with reference to these things. 
 Instead of producing them, he refused to call them; instead of producing them, he 
 has been instrumental in keeping them away; instead of producing them, he forced a 
 discharge of the committee of the Thirtieth Legislature, investigating his crimes, at a 
 time when he knew that four of the Senate Committee would report against him. 
 
 Now, my fellow citizens, Joe Bailey hos not been sincere either with the people 
 or with the Legislature. In addressing the Thirtieth Legislature on one occasion he 
 said that he had not started this in\c.tigation, which was true, and that he would 
 be the last to call it off, which was false. He instigated the conduct of his friends 
 in that examination. He watched it all along the line. He behaved in a way to 
 satisfy any man not given over to the folly of partisanship that he was a guilty man. 
 His friends closed that investigation without the testimony which would have been 
 presented by an examination of the books, vouchers and records of the Waters- 
 Pierce Oil Company, without the testimony of witnesses in the city of St. Louis, 
 who should have been examined, to-wit: C. F. Hatfield, Charles B. Collins, former 
 secretary to H. C. Pierce, W. H. Clancy, J. C. Van Blarcom, James Campbell, 
 Lewis Flato and H. C. Pierce, himself. That committee was denied, at the instiga- 
 tion of Joe Bailey, the right to send a committee to Nashville, Tenn., to investi- 
 gate the matters connected with the Tennessee Construction Company, the Tennes- 
 see Railroad Company and the disposition of those properties. They were denied 
 an opportunity to investigate the Riggs Bank at Washington. They were denied 
 an opportunity to investigate Pat Calhoun in reference to Bailey's transactions with 
 him for the Kirby Lumber Company, The Houston Oil Company, of John W. 
 Gates, of S. G. Bayne, of the Security Oil Company, of Archbold, Rogers and 
 other Standard Oil magnates, the testimony of H. H. Stein, Norman, Tilford and 
 Wade Hampton, by whom it was desired to prove Bailey's frequent attendance at 
 26 Broadway, his transactions there and his constant absence from his duties at 
 V/ashington. They were denied even the right to go into the Indian Territory to 
 investigate Bailey's transactions there in respect to the Federal clerkship charge, and 
 while it is true that Joe Bailey congratulates himself and boasts to the country that 
 although his home at Gainesville is just across Red River from the Indian Territory, 
 where he might have stolen the whole country, he avers most solemnly that he never 
 acquired a foot of land or a sinele mine. 
 
 It certainly escaped Joe Bailey's attention when talking in this boastful way that 
 all of that territory was nailed down and could not have been taken away by Joe 
 Bailey or any combination of Senators. 
 
 In fact, my fellow citizens, when this record had progressed up to the eighteenth 
 day of February of this year, it became apparent to Bailey and Bailey's friends, that, 
 if persisted in, it would lead to such disclosures as would compel Joe Bailey to re- 
 sign the office to which he had been fraudulently elected by the concealment of 
 facts which, of known, would have deterred any honest representative from voting 
 for him. The opposition to a continuation of that investigation filed by Wolfe and 
 O'Neal and Cobb and J. A. Patten, is altogether inadmissible under the circum- 
 stances under which it was filed. 1 hey say that they are opposed to continuing the 
 investigation for the purpose of ascertaining what was in the breast of other wit- 
 nesses because some witnesses disclaimed a knowledge of the things. If we should 
 apply that rule to the investigations of a ^rand jury seekins; to ferret out crime and 
 criminals, it would be an easy matter to obstruct the due administration of the laws 
 of the county. This investigation committee should have been char^-ed diligently 
 to inquire into every avenue suggested by Mr. Cocke, who was forced by the parti- 
 sars of Joe Bailey to assume a most onerous and unpleasant position, but it delights 
 
me to state in justice to him that he met the responsibility as becomes a man and 
 discharged the duty in a manner befiiltint an old patriot." 
 
 BAILEY'S HYPOCRISY. 
 
 And then, my fellow citizens, look at the hypocrisy of this man. When Burton 
 of Kansas, was convicted and sent to the penitentiary, he took an appeal to ^l e 
 Supreme Court of the United States. When Congress met in December, 1903, his 
 Republican associates in the Senate, at Mr. Burton's own request, did not assign 
 him to any committee. When this fact was made known. Senator Bailey arose m 
 the Senate and with pharisaical pretention asked why it was that Burton, the Senator 
 from Kansas, was not assigned to any committee. He said further that the Senate of 
 the United States should not await the shw process of the courts; they were the 
 judges of the elections and qualifications of their own members; they had the power 
 of expulsion, and that, if a man was unworthy to be assigned to a committee, he 
 was unworthy to be a member of the Senate. He said, too, that in the enforce- 
 ment of the criminal law the presumption of innocence attached to every man 
 charged with crime, and that no person Si.ould be convicted unless his puilt was 
 established beyond all reasonable doubt. "But," said he, "when a man has been 
 elected Senator of the United States and a charge is made against him, the Senate 
 should investigate it, and that the rule that he should be acquitted unless his guilt 
 was shown beyond a reasonable doubt, should not apply — that a contrary rule should 
 be enforced, and that any Senator charged with any grave offense or with any 
 offense involving moral turpitude, or with any offense which which unfitted him for 
 a seat in the Senate, should establish his innocence beyond all reasonable doubt, or 
 he should be expelled." 
 
 In this statement he announced a brave and manly rule worthy the approval of 
 all honest and patriotic men. But how does he meet it before the investigating com- 
 mittee of the Thirtieth Legislature, after he had ben elected Senator and when the 
 sole enquiry was as to his fitness to hold this exalted place, in view of the crimes 
 charged against him that affected his integrity as a man and his honor as a Senator? 
 When the charges had been preferred at his instigation, and in the form he demanded, 
 the attorneys for the people asked him to take the stand and tell the truth, the whole 
 truth, and nothing but the truth. Before this demand he cowed and quailed. He 
 pleaded that it was a criminal prosecution and that no man could be required to in- 
 criminate hiniself. He wholly repudiated ttie position he had assumed on the floor 
 of the Senate of the United States in respect to Senator Burton. He claimed, 
 throu-h his counsel, that some of the charges would subject him to a criminal prose- 
 cution. In a pitiful way, by his counsel, he pleaded that it would be a grievous 
 injustice to him to bring him before the committee at that time and undertake to inter- 
 rogate him on these criminal and quasi-cri-ninal accusations against nim. Can any 
 man imagine any other Senator ever elected by the people of Texas hesitating to 
 aver and announce any and everywhere his full participation in any transaction, 
 public or private, imputed to him that affected his integrity as a man and his honor 
 as a Senator? My fellow citizens, no more abject spectacle than Joe Bailey's refusal 
 to be sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as the first 
 witness, can be found in history. His cowardice in this matter condems him, and 
 his shrinking away from putting his ho"0' to the touch betrays a consciousness of 
 guilt that no freeman ought to condone. 
 
 Think of any man, conscious of the rectitude of his own conduct, refusing to 
 declare his participation in any transaction, before a legislative committee, which 
 had neither the power to punish him or to remove him from an office fraudulently 
 obtained and unworthily held! What becomes of his boasted obligation to prove his 
 innocence? 
 
 Another man, Mitchell of Oreo^on, was convicted of the offense of receiving 
 money to represent parties before the Cominissioner of the General Land Office. He 
 was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary. Overwhelmed with disgrace, the 
 poor old man, over 70 years of age, died with a broken heart. When he died it 
 
 — 30— 
 
was heralded all over the country, and our self-righteous, unco gude Bailey notified 
 the colleague of the dead Mitchell in the Senate of the United State, that if his 
 death was announced in that body and a motion made to adjourn in honor of his 
 memory, he would be compelled to oppose it. Now think of this. There he was, 
 standing with a front of brass, with over half a million dollars of the Standard Oil 
 Company and other trusts in his pocket, warring not only on the living Burton, but 
 against the dead Mitchell, when the offenses they had committed were the merest 
 peccadilloes compared with the gross and infamous treachery, and the villainous be- 
 trayal of the people who elected him, which have been committed by Joe Bailey. 
 What do you think of such hypocrisy as this? 
 
 THE ISSUE IN 1908, AND OUR DUTY THEN. 
 
 My fellow citizens, in the next year the Democratic forces of this nation will 
 again be marshalled under some leader to contest the rights of the opposition to 
 dominate the affairs of this Government. Regrettable and painful circumstances 
 within the last five years have demonstrated that the Senate of the United States 
 is the most corrupt body clothed with great legislative power, in relation to its 
 numbers, in the world. That is, that there are, and have been, a greater number of 
 criminals and traitors to the rights of the people in the Senate of the United States 
 than any other class or department of government. If we desire to charge this cor- 
 ruption to the Republicans next year and remind them of Mitchell, of Burton, of 
 Derrick, of Depew and of Piatt, and Borah, can they not retort on us that there 
 was yet enough of virtue in the Republican party to indict and punish their traitors 
 and to drive them with shamed heads from public gaze. May they not say, too, 
 it does not lie in the mouths of the Democrats of Texas to reply to this, for they 
 have, it is true, with imperfect and meagre knowledge of all the facts elected a man 
 whose treasons are greater than all the treasons of Mitchell, Burton, Derrick, Piatt, 
 Depew and Borah, and what reply can any honesv mar. in Texas make to this retort 
 by our political enemies? So far as I am corxerned, I would not undertake the 
 defence of such a man as Joe Bailey. Not only this, ^ny fellow citizens, bu'. today in 
 order to recover his lost prestige, in order to /.i.eer his wormeaten reputation, the 
 monopolies, the railroad lawyers, or many of them at least, all of them that may be 
 controlled by Harriman and hi- interests, very conscienceless, practical politician, 
 who looks only to the results of success \^i.iiout reference to the honorable means 
 employed, are organizing to put Joe Bailey at the head of the Texas delegation 
 to the National Convention of the United States to write for us a Democratic plat- 
 form, and we must either submit to this indignity, or we must stand up in our 
 maj-sty and overturn and overwhehn these conspirators against the good name and 
 credit of the State of Texas. How many of you will be found wanting or recreant 
 in the discharge of this patriotic duty? How many of you in this hour of trial and 
 daneer will stand by the ideals of your fathers and defend by your votes now the 
 honor of the State which they have bequeathed to you? More tnan this! This 
 arrorant blackguard has announced and reiterated that no man who opposed him m 
 the past or opposes now need ever expect a political office in Texas. He has 
 named Barrett to beat Randell, and he has brought out Looney to be your Attorney 
 General, feeling that if he can put one or all his partisans in the offices in Texas, he 
 can have an absolute machine which will support him in his undemocratic and un- 
 patriotic practices, and shield him against prosecutions for his crimes in every court. 
 Are you ready today to pledge yourselves one to another, that in vindication of the 
 honor of the State of Texas, no man can receive your vote for any office from 
 constable up, who dares endorse the practices of Joe Bailey or apologizes for his 
 methods or misdeeds. The times call on all of us to be sturdy, brave men and do 
 our duty to our country and to our fellow men. 
 
 —31— 
 
WHY SHOULD ANY DEMOCRAT BE CONTENT TO LET JOE 
 BAILEY CONTINUE HIS SERVICE IN THE SENATE? 
 
 And then, again, my fellow citizens, alone of all the Democratic Senators m the 
 South, alone of all the representatives ol the South. Joe Bailey stands convicted 
 or high crimes and misdemeanors. When, at his instigation, the committee appomted 
 to investigate him was discharged, because he had learned that the committee in 
 the Senate by a majority vote would have reported against him, he forced by a 
 majority vote oi his partisans in the Legislature, (under the false and fradulent 
 plea that he must go at once to Washington to be sworn in), a discharge of the 
 committee without a report. He returned to Washington, and there he sat, sur- 
 rounded by old Senators Morgan and Pettus. by White and Raynor. of Maryland, 
 by Daniel and Martin, of Virginia, by Sinmons and Overman, of North Carolina, 
 by Bacon and Clay, of Georgia, the Senators from South Carolina, the Senators 
 from Florida, the Senators from Louisiana, the Senators from Kentucky, Mississippi 
 and Arkansas, and by Charles A. Culberson, the Senator from Texas. There has 
 never been the smell of corruption on the political garments of any of these Sen- 
 ators, nor of any Senator from the South since reconstruction days, except in the 
 case of Joe Bailey. He has been elected. The Legislature, recrean* to its duty, 
 under an idea that it should obey its instructions, voted for this m n for United 
 States Senator, and voted for him, not that he was fit for the place, but because 
 he was the nominee. Suppose that when Joe Bailey ran for the Senatr last year the 
 people had known that he had received all of this money from the Walers-Pierce Oil 
 Company, that his name as "republish" was on the secret code of these trusts and 
 monopolies, and that he was and had been in the active service of the Standard 
 Oil trust, the Security Oil Company, the Kirby Lumber trust, the Tennessee rail- 
 road matter, and all of the rich and monopolistic concerns from whom he had been 
 taking money for years under the guise of fees, — does any man believe that the good 
 people of Texas would have honored him with their support? No fair-minded, just- 
 thinking man would assert it. He has attempted to thwart all investigation. He has 
 suppressed all testimony. He attempted to brazen out the case agahst him with 
 a most audacious impudence. He mounts the hustings and denounce? good men and 
 true all over the State as hyenas, as liars, as scoundrels. When h<^. returns to the 
 Senate in December to be sworn in, he will take his seat, the one suspect on the 
 Democratic side. There he will sit, with the brand of infamy upon his brow, cov- 
 ered all over with the confluent pustules of political disgrace, st^'wing in corruption, 
 steeped in ^ iilainy, false to every trust, a traitor to his country, an** for five years he 
 will be a b..rning shame and an everlasting dishonor to the gr( at State of Texas 
 and to the trusting, confiding people whom he has infamously Netrayed. 
 
 Today we implore the spirits of our fathers, of our dead throes and statesmen, 
 in the name of all the sacred and honorable memories of the past, to come back to 
 us in this first hour of our country's shame — to quicken our hearts and consciences, 
 to inopire us anew with that love of Lberty and honor which g'orifird their lives, to 
 strengthen our arms and purpose to blot out this black spo\ o edeem our coun- 
 try from the oppressions of wicked trusts and to restore our government to the 
 people, to be administered under just laws, made and execu' id by honest men. 
 
 —32- 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 787 590 1 %