Newspaper Page Text
THE WEEKLY HERALD. APRIL 30, 1908. JUDGE WILLIAM POINDEXTER DEFENDS BAILEY Cleburne. Tjh. April It. (Spa Is!.1 Judge William polndexler, at torucy for the state In the icglsla live investigation of Senator Dalley last year, tonlijht delivered the fol lowing eloquent defense of tbo scua tor: . Ladies srid Gentlemen: One of the tenets of tt religion of my fath er, who lived and died In this coun try. wn to tell tho truth end to pay I.Ih debts, and this ho constantly en joined upon his children. In my struggles to heed hi admonitions I grew to manhood In the belief that no man could he honorable and re fuse to pay bis Just debt whn he who ble to do a". .Though my path ban fen rugged at times, 1 have never knowingly violated the In junction or repudiated the admon ition, and my early training and be lief ha ripened JoU the conviction hat tho highest evidence of man'a Integrity I innnlfent by hie dlspo sltlou tu p.v bis debt and to speak M;e truth; . , ; , - ' ; In the memorable campaign be tween Senator Chilton; and Mr, UI)ey for the position.- of : United Rtstes senator In 1900, reports be came current that Mr. Bailey would not duv hla liiftt debts. I was in- rllned to believe thege reporta and though 1 regarded Mr. Bailey eg the Airst equipped .and Qualified man for the poultlon, I did not ilelleve lhat a man who was able to pay his debts and would not was not fit to occupy the high office of V. 8. sen alor, and so I made up my mind to support Senator Chilton, but upon In quiry I found these reporta were nn tme. I was convinced that Mr, llalley In lits efforts to pay hla debts had done more than most men would have done under the same circum stances. He not only surrendered ill library, widen u exempt from forced sale, to hie creditors to pay Ms debts, but he also Rave up his homestead, which was likewise ex. npr from forced ale, end moved Ids family Into humble cottage. I know that no dishonest man would give up all of his earthly possession except his wife and children ,to pay his debts, and therefore I supported end voted for Mr. Bailey for United States senator in that contest. ''.When, the stale Democratic con vention met in Waco In Angust,1900, n open attack was made upon At torney General Smith and Mr. Hardy, lecretnry of state, for granting a lcrmit to the Waters Pierce Oil com pany, as t hen reorganised, to do busl aess In tho state of Texas. Senator Halley threw himself In the breach i nd assumed all responsibility for Ihe readmlsslon of the company. It 'm claimed by those who beard him lhat Senator Bailey In a speech be 'ore the convention called upon the vmvenllon to hold him and not At '.orney General Hardy responsible for Iho readmlsslon of the Waters Pierce Oil company Into Texas. First Investigation, i ' I was a delegate to that conven tion, but on account of aickness in my fumlly I did not attend and hence took no part In that contro versy. But from a distance I saw with certainty that Mr. Bailey's en tmios would accept his gage of battle and bold him directly responsible as the active agent in the reodmls slon of the Waters Pierce Oil com. puny. So wbiMi the legislature con vened in Austin In January, 1901, charges were preferred against Mr. Dalley, then congressman: T. 8. Smith, attorney general, and D. H. Hardy, secretary of state, alleging in substsnco that Mr. Dalley was the active agent in procuring, and T. S. Smith, attorney general, end D. H, Hardy, secretary of state, the passive agents In Issuing the permit and in . securing the readmlsslon of the Wa ters Tierce Oil company into the state of Texas. Investigations fol lowed. The evidence was beard and all the parties exonerated, tad Mr. Bailey was elected to represent Texas In the United States senate. I was not in Austin during this investiga tion and took no part In the contro versy. " During tb years intervening be tween January. 1901. and the spring of 196. the fact of the services Mr. Bailey bad rendered to J. H. Kirby and the amount of money he bad made in that service was generally known and discussed throughout Texas, and Ills connection with the reafltolsalon of the Waters Pierce Oil , wrupany Into Texas was revamped i cans mm ,Vm.tm and discussed over and over again With all these facts before the pco pie, Senator Halley came before the Democracy of Texas In the spring of 1906 as a candidate for reflection to the senate of the United States and campaigned the state from end to end and was nominated by about 100,000 voles In the Democratic prl. marl's. Second Invest IgnlJon. When the legislature convened at Austin in Janusry, 1 907, charges were again preferred against Senator Bailey. A, .committee compoHrd of seven members was appointed by the house and a committee composed of seven members was appointed by the senate to Investigate these charges After the senate committee was organized I received a phone niosaagc from the chairman of the committee requesting m to come to Austin and repreHent the senate committee In the investigation. I went to Austin and appeared before the committee stated 'to that committee that I had voted for Senator Bailey In the primaries, bad attended tho state con. ventlon and participated in his nom Inatlon and that I regarded him as the nominee of the Democratic party of Texas, but that I had not mndo up my mind as to the truth or falsity of the charges to foe investigated. The chairman of the committee In the presence of the whole committee Informed me that it was the don I re of every member of the committee that I e-ccept and serve a the attor ney of the senate committee during the Investigation. I stated to them that if tbey proposed to have a full, fair and honest investigation of the charges and tbey desired my service not as an attorney for Mr. Bailey nor as an attorney for the persecution. but as the adviser and attorney of the committee to seek out and do velop the truth as It might appear, I would accept the position, otberwlso I would decline it; that I understood Mr. Bslley bad selected his own at torneys and that Mr. Cooke would doubtless select hla attorneys and that I would not be put in the posi tion of being made the attorney of either, but that I was willing to serve the senate committee In the develop, nient of testimony and in advis ing the committee In all matters deemed necessary. With this understanding I accept ed the employment of the senate committee as a lawyer and as an at torney and undertook the discharge of my duties br such and discharged those duties throughout ' that long and tedious trial to the best of my ability. I did not seek this position and did not accept. It with any de- alre for political notoriety. I never suffered myself to be Interviewed by a newspaper reporter during the whole trial and never expressed my self on the question of the guilt or the innoconce,of Senator Bailey on any charge. , , Fair and Correct. ' While many of the incidents and details of the trial wero not sallsfac. tory to me, I believe the result was as fair and correct as could have been obtained under the evidence. There was nothing proved from which any fair-minded man could conclude that Senator Bailey had been guilty of official misconduct, malfeasance in office or that lu any wine disqualified blra from holding the office of United SLates senator. A .majority of the committee exon erated Senator Bailey and acquired him of all blame. The minority re port filed by Messrs. Jenkins aud McGregor reported the evidence pro and con on each charge, but made no finding us to the guilt or innocenco of Senator Bailey. Judge Robertson filed a separate report concurring In the majority report and adding that he believed Senator Bailey had been Indiscreet. ' After the investigation closed I returned home with the determina tion not to make my opinion known as to the guilt or Innocence of Sen ator Bailey until I bad re.read and examined all the testimony. After the ovldenco was published and I obtained a copy I carefully reviewed the whole record and feel that I am thoroughly conversant with all the testimony offered. What I say to you tonight Is the first public utter- anre I have made upon the questions Involved. . I woould not speak now were it not that I believe the people of Texas have a right to know my conclusions Attorney for the State in the Legislative Inves tigation Reviews All the Evidence and Renders Judgment for the Senator. . gl- .ipn.i.p. jiiimi WW Wlll III III 'H. H JL JiJjij.lll'Jl'MtJ"'WllWPrPW-.w.fil f; T 1!1'."J,'I' ! 'il formed from the evidence. I am out of polltlcg and have no desire to be Involved In the political strife of tho hour. I do not speak as the per sonal friend of Mr. Hallcy because I have no claim upon his friendship. Indeed, I do not know that he will even thank mo for whst I may say In his behalf on this occasion. 1 do not propose to denounco any man be cause he Is an enemy of Senator Dalley, for many of his enemies are my friends. When I come to make up my choice among the candidates of Johnson county for local offices and to cast my ballot In tho Demo cratic, primaries I do not propone to vote for any man because he may be a Bailey man nor against any man because he may be an antl-Bulley man, unless some man msy lie fool. Ish enough to run as a Bailey or an anti-Bailey candidate In which event I shall exercise my right to vote against him for I do uot believe any Democrat should permit this ques tion to enter Into local polltlrs. I believe Senator Bailey has raado mistakes, but I ibellevo they were honest mistakes, and I shall vote for Senator Bailey May 2. When I como to vote for an antl-Balley man who la a candldute for a local office 1 shall say, "I believe you are mistaken 1n your attitude toward Senator Bailey, but I bellevo your mistake Is an honest one, and I shall therefore support .von on your quali fications for the office." It would be Impossible as well as unprofitable for me to attempt to discuss all the charges presented against Senator Bailey, and upon which he was tried and asqultted at Austin. There are forty-two of these charges, covering almost the entire period of bis political life in Texas. Specification No. 21 in effect charg es that on account of Balloy's finan cial transactions with John II. Klrby and the Klrby Lumber company he was so embarrassed as to render him unfit and Ineligible for the office of United States senator from Texas. The history of this mutter Is too long to be repeated here. The evi dence bearing upon It covers several hundred pages. The sum of tho whole may be stated as follows: The Honston Oil company and the Klrby Lumber company were Texas corpor ations and were Incorporated at the same time. John H. Klrby was the owner of the Klrby Lumber company and the owner of a large body of timbered land in Southeast Texas. This land he transferred to the Houston OH company lu considera tion of the stock of the Houston OH company Issued to the Klrby Lum ber company. A Mr. Calhoun of New York wss nlade the financial agent of both companies and agreed Ith Kirby to finance the lumber company.' Calhouu was to sell tho stock of the oil company for money and turn the money over to tho Kirby Lumber company, and was to receive a commission for his services. In November, 1902, Mr. Klrby as certained that Calhoun had violated his trust, had hypothecated tho stock of the oil company In various places to secure Individual loans and when he demanded of Calhoun the stoclc or the money he could obtain neither a dnwas threatened with financial disaster and ruin. lie wu a compar ative stranger in JJew York, bad no counsel there and 1a this condition he appealed to Senator Bailey to come to his relief, agreeing to give him the same compensation he bad agreed to give Calhoun. Bailey's Services to Klrby. "Senator Bailey accepted the ser. vice and in two years succeeded in redeeming the stock and in celling the same, and for this service he re ceived from Kirby In commislons the sum of about $225,000. In his ef forts to redeem this stock Senator Bailey, on behalf of the Klrby Lum ber company, was forced to execute a note for $156, 000, and as collateral security he placed with the bank holding the note a large amount of the stock of the Houston Oil com pany, aud at the request of the bank obtained the indorsement on tho note of H- C. Pierce. He afterwards sold the stock and with the money derived from the sale of the stock paid off and discharged this note. Tho twenty.second specification charges la effect that Senator Bailey's connection with the Tennes see Construction , company was in consistent, with his public duty and calculated to embarrass bis public service. The sum of the evidence touching thlH matter Is that the Ten. n"nsee Construction company built Tennessee railroad, unil in doing ho Incurred a largo amount of Indebted ness to various parties snd concerns, and to secure it took the bonds of the railroad secured by a trust deed. One Mr. Van Blarrom and H. C. Pierce were the owners of a large number of these bonds, and had be came personalty responsible for much of the Indebtedness of the con struction company, ami tho railroad was practically Insolvent. Itellroad Transaction. In this cnndltiou Van Blarcom and Pierce sought the service of Senator Bailey in December, 1904, to straight en out the tangled mesh and to ad vice them what to do to save and ex tricate themselves. Senator Bailey agreed to take the matter up only after tho adjournment of congress In March, 1905. He absolutely re fused to give his attention to tho matter until after congress ad journed. After the adjournment of congress he took the matter In charge, ascertained the status of the business and advised Van Blarcom and Pierce not to foreclose on the railroad as It would not pay operat ing expenses, but advised them to sell the bonds to some connecting railway line. He was then employed to negotiate. If possible this sale. After obtaining the consent of all other parties interested, these stocks and bonds snd Hens were transferred to the Southern railroad and to the Illinois Central rallroal. If this transaction ever directly or remotely affected Senator Bailey's official du ties the evidence falls to disclose it. Specifications No. 2 and Including specification No. IS relate to Senator Bailey's connection with the -read-mission of the Waters Tierce Oil company to Texas. Aa ibefore Stated Senator Bailey was charged In 1901 befofe he wss ever elected to the United States senate and whilst he was yet a con gressman with being the active agont In procuring the readmlsslon of this company. Old Case Over Again. I had never read nor underatoood the evidence that was offered before the Investigating committee In 1901 until my connection with the inves tigation of 1907 but when I looked Into that record 1 found to my sur prise that practically the same evi dence was Introduced In the investi gation of 1901 that was introduced In the investigation of 1907 on this Issue. They sought to show in that investigation not only that Bailey procured the readmlsslon of the company but that, as a consideration for his services he received the Grapevine ranch commonly known as the Glbbs ranch. Governor Francis did not testify at that time but ex Lleutenant Governor Barney Glbbs did testify that the sale and transfer by him of this ranch had absolutely no connection with Pierce or the re admlsslon of tho company. He testi fied that he only received $1,000 in ciiBh In the transaction and 20,000 acres of lsnd 1n Pecos county con veyed to him by Governor Francis. The balance was paid bv the assump tion of mortgages existing upon the land. A part of this land was con veyed by Gibbs to Francis and the deed was held by him until Bailey secured the reconveyance to Francis of the Pecos county land and paid Glbbs the price at which it was re- e ' ""rry dollar that Bailey paid for Ui.a U:'. and In redeeming It from prkor mortgages was account ed for In that investigation and the evidence showed that not a dollar of it came directly or Indirectly from II. Clay pierce. In the last investi gation Governor Francis testified as did Governor Glbbs and his evidence shows conclusively that II. Clay Pierce bad absolutely no connection, directly or Indirectly with the pur chase of the ranch by Bailey from Glbbs. It is most remarkable that on this issue the same charge was made against Senator Baitey 1n 1901 that was made against him in 1907 and that he wss acquitted in 1901 and retired for the same thing in 1907 except that to 1907 It was further charged that in addition to the Gibbs ranch Bailey received as considera tion for his services the several sums of money disclosed by the vouchers Introduced In evidence in the last trial. The vldcuce offered In 1901 shows conclusively that Bailey had abso lutely nothing to do with procuring the permit or with the readmlsslon of tho company to Texas and there was not a line nor syllublo nor word nor scintilla of evidence showing or tending to show that be did. Waters Pierce Rcadmlssion. Now what does the record show? It shows that a Judgment had 'been rendered In the district court at Aus tl prohibiting the Wuters Plcrco Oil company from doing business In Texas. It shows that a stilt was pending In Waco. Texas, ngHliiKt Iho ame company for penalties for mak ing exclusive conlrnct.s In violation of law and that II. day Pierce and otli era wero under Indictment for violat ing the anti-trust law. It shows that H. Clay Plcrco appealed' to ex-Gov ernor Francis, a man of honor and Integrity, and an old and Intimate friend of Mr. Bailey us the proper man for him to see. He gave to pierce a letter of Introduction to Mr. Bailey and requested Mr. Bailey to do what he could for II. Clay Pierce. Bailey came to Waco and thence to Austln with the suggestion that the litigation tie compromised. He saw Attorney General Smith snd Smith showed him the judgment could not be compromised and after Tlailey had examined the Judgment he agreed with Smith. Bailey then told Pierce that the Judgment of the state could not be compromised and that the only thing ho could do was to dissolve the old company and organize a new com pany, como back into Texan with clean hands and obey the law, Bailey suggested that he organize a Texas company. A Devoted I'rlcnd. But tho question In asked, if Sena, tor Bailey did not procure Iho lead mission of tho company to Texas, why did he assunio responsibility for Us readmlssiou at the Waco convention in August, 1900? Follow citizens, during the long investigation at Aus tin I studied very curcfully the traita of churntter poK.seshod by Senator Itailey and came to the coin iiislon that he is the most demoted friend moital man ever possessed. 1 ! llcve he confides to tho uttermost In his friends, and tliut ho will sac rifice mora for a friend than any man I ever knew. T. H. Smith, the attorney general, wan hi friend and was most viciously attacked In the Wuco convention becuuse. of his ac tion in advising Secretary Hardy to Issue, tho prrmiU Senator Ilailey believed the attack was an outrage upon the Integrity of Smith and it aroused in hi nit he utiuowt indigna tion, and with all tho manhood lie possessed ho came to the defense of Smith, and in his defense he (rent further then the facts reqnlred and therefore said, "I assume responsi bility for tills; don't blame Smith but blamo mc." Senator Bailey did not say, "I aaked Smith to iwue this penult." Ho did not aay, "I was In strumental in securing the readmis sion of tho Waters llerco Oil com pany," but he said, "I aseumo the responsibility for what Smith has done." I heard men for political pur poses, during the latter days of the life of Attorney General Smith, de nounce hlra in the bitterest terms for his action in readmitting this oil company to Texas. I saw General Smith In tho latter days of his life when his feet were gradually slipping into the chilly waters of death, and I know how keenly he felt the sting of these poisonous shafts, but I have never heard one of these political orators read a line of law or cite a single decision from any court in this or any other state holding that the action of Smith under tho facts presented to him at the time was wrong. The enemies of Smith knew and the enemies of Bailey know to day, that under the facts as they appeared to Attorney General Smith at the time, under the affidavit of II. Clay Pierce, and under the laws of Texas, he did no more nor less than the law required him to do. Mr Fall Hill. But they ask: "If Senator Bailey did not procure the readmlsslon of the Waters Pierce Oil company to Texas, why did he return from Wash ington to Texas In March. 1901, for the purpose of defeating the McFall bill?" My answer to this Is that Bailey had advised Pierce to reorgan ize hlg company and to come back into Texas. The coDpany was re organized and a new permit granted under the advice of Attorney Gen eral Smith, under the belief that the company was an independent concern and not a trust. Smith bad been at tacked In the Waco convention and Bailey bad publicly assumed respon sibility for the readmlsslon of the company. The bill introduced by McFall into the legislature de nounced the readmlsslon of this com pany as a fraud upon the laws of Texas and declared the permit void Senator Bailey kncy that this was u political move by the enemies of him. self and Attorney General Smith, and that the only thing Miught or that eould In accomplished by the pas sago of tho bill wsm a legislative de eUratio,, lhat the readmlnslou of the company was a fraud. Senator Bailey knew, and every lawyer knows, that tVo only way hy which It could be le gaily determined that the readmls slon of the company was a fraud was through the courts of the country, nnd not by legislative enactment. He knew, and every well informed law er knows, that the McFall bill It self was a fraud, and was Intended ti accomplish nothing hut a reflec tion upon Senator Bailey and Tom Smith, and therefore Bailey returned to Texas In March, 1901, and boldly declared the fact that he was opposed to Ibis bill because It was Intended as a thrust at hint and was not In. tended to cancel the permit of the oil company, Subsequent events have developed the fact that at the time llalley ad vised the compromise of the cases lit Waco and Austin, the Standard Oil company owned a majority of tho stock of the Waters Pierce Oil com pany. Did Bailey know these facts at tho time he advised the comprom ise? The evldenco shows he did not. Pierce's Deception. Pierce told llalley it was an inde pendent concern. Hob Henry told Senator Bailey at Waco that he thought tho Watcij Pierce Oil com pany was a party to the Standard Oil agreement, and submitted to Bailey a copy of that agreement. Bailey ex amined this copy aud found to his satisfaction that the agreement did not evidence a trust but proved to tbo contrary. Tho Judge who tried the caso of the state agalust the com pany at Austin Instructed the Jury that there was not sufficient evidence to establish the fact that the Waters Pierce Oil company was a party to tht Standard Oil agreement and to Ignore that Issue altogether in their deliberation. This charge I exam, ined myself at Austin and know that the judge so instructed the Jury. The only issue submitted to the Jury in that case was at to whether or not tho company had made exclusive contracts in tho state of Texas and tho Jury found against the company upon this issue, and this alone. Sen ator Bailey swore that he did not know that the Standard Oil company owned stock in the Waters Pierce Oil company or that tho Waters Pierre was a trust, but that he believed it was an Independent concern. It is contended by those opposed to Senator Bailey that the records of the Waters Pierce Oil compuny and the vouchers Introduced in evidence in the investigation last had in Aus tin shown conclusively that Senator Bailey received from the company $3,300 April 23, 1900, $1,500 Juno 13, 1900, $8,000 March 1, 1901, and $1,750 March 28,1901, It is true also that that books of the company introduced in evidence showed that theso vouchers had been regularly entered upon the books of tho com pany. Both tho vouchers and the books evidence the fact that Pierce bad paid Bailey these sums of money the item of $3,300 and the item of $8,000 as loans and the other two items as expenses, and the vouchers and the books show that Pierce had received from the com pany these several amounts of money. The books further show that Pierce never at any time repaid these sums of money to the company, and that ell theso sums were ultimately charged to profit and loss. Bailey Not Responsible. While these are the facts as they appear from tho vouchers and the books I 'assert that no court lu Chris tendom would have admitted either the vouchers or the books as evi dence against Senator Bailey because there was no evidence before the committee that Senator Bailey ever borrowed this money from tho coin, pany or authorized his notes or checks to be passed Into the company or to bo placed upon the books of the company. This evidence was purely hearsay in so far as Senator Bailey is concerned. Why, then, were these papers and these books admitted in evidence before the In vestigating committee? Simply be cause they had been published to the world and bad assumed the form of charges against the character of Sen ator Bailey and the question for the determination of the committee was whether Senator Bailey was connect ed with these vouchers and books. Senator Bailey could not in law be held responsible for any statement of Pierce made in writing or otherwise, or for any entry upon the books of the Waters pierce OH company with out nrovlnc that be was in some wa coituocieu wim iuo nuo-in,u. - ator Bailey swore tnni April sj.jhuu, Pierce agreed to loan blm as much. as $5,000. That on that day lie ad. vnnced h I ni $3,300 aiT took Dalley'a due bill for the amount, and that June 13 of tho same year ho drew a; draft upon Pierce for $4,500, aggre gating H.MiO. lie also swore that about March 1, 1901, bo borrowed from Pierce the sum of $8,000 and executed his note due In four month for the amount, but received only a part of It in . cash, and March 23 drew upon Plcrco for $1,700 as a part of tbe $8,000. The prosecutors of Bailey contend that these several sums of money were paid to Pallcy iby tho Waters) Pierre Oil company as compensation for hlH services In securing the resd mission of the W'alers Pierce OH company to Texas. On the otherj hand Senator Bailey contends that! he did not receive one cent's com pensation for making tho trip im Texas and attempting to comprom Ise the cases at Waco and Austin; that ho did so simply upon tbe rej quest of D. H. Frauds and thi' these sums of money wero borrowed by him from Pierce Individually anJ were repaid by him to Tierce. Personal louus. The prosecution contends that Bat' ley did not borrow theso sums from Plene Individually, that he received them as a fee for tbo purpose stated and that the nolo and tbe due bill executed by him wero not Intended to bo obligations, and that he neves' repaid any of this money to rierc or the company. Now the proposition Is a plain one. Bailey either bor rowed this money from Pierce aoj repaid It or he received It from fh Waters Tierce Oil company as a fee and as compensation for his services in securing (ho readmlsslon of that company to Texas. If ho received the money as a fee and as conipen. satlon rendered at tho time, and ta be rendered In securing the read mission of tho company to Texae then it follows as night the day, that be is the most corrupt man who ever filled a public office In Texas or walked upon shoe leather, because If that be true he has not only deceived the people of Texas but he has lied, repeatedly lied and more than that he has willfully and deliberately sworn falsely and Is guilty of per jury under our law. On the other hand If these were loans, and if h has repaid the money to Tierce the It follows with equal certainty thas he has been and Is the worst abused mistreated and slsndered man who has figured in public life. Now what evidence have wr that theso sums of money were advanced to Bailey by Pierce on behalf of the. company or by the company as com pensation for his services? I answev by tho record and by all the facts In troduced upon the investigation thai there Is not one particle of evidence except the vouchers and tho book) of the company, and these are purely; hearsay statements In so far as Sen ator Bailey is concerned. The vouch ers and the books simply show that when Bailey received a dollar frona Pierce, Plcrco in turn received it from the company, and when Ballef repaid It Pierce put it in bis pocket. Did Bailey borrow the money from Pierce? The due hill Bailey executed tJ I4erc April 25, 1000, evidences tho fact. Hie note Bailey executed to Pierce March 1, IDOl, proves the fact. Tho evidence of Governor IVancIs to tho effect that Tierce told him that Bailey would not accept at fee but that he had loaned him some money proves the fact. Tho sworn testimony of Senator Bailey estab lishes the fact beyond controversy. Did Bailey repay to Pierce I hla money? t, seems to me that th evidence of Governor Francis should settle this question once and forever. How any living man can doubt tho truth of the statement of Governor Francis on thi question is past my comprehension. Testimony of Francis. Governor Francis swore 'Defoic the committee thut by request 0f Senator Bailey ho paid to H. C. Pierce In St. Louis, tho sum of $4,800 in tatisfac. tion of tbo $1,500 draft of date June lu, 1900, and the $3,300 duo bill of dato April 23, 1900, and received these papers from Mr. Pierce and forwarded them to Senator Bailey by letter Nov. 22, 1900. He produced bofoie the committee bis old letter book aud exhibited tbe press copy of the letter of that date in which be stated to Senator Bailey that he bad paid to Mr. pierce this sum of money In satisfaction of this draft snd tbia due bill and enclosed, tbe.ni In the letter to Senator Bailey. Why will any living man doubt the truth of this statement of Governor Francis? Why would any human be- (Continued on Page Seven.) r 'A f f m . fa J J ..., . i.