The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1874-05-14
IcorTrr1cITrn-i


eainsN Eiie9 AUSTIN, hay 8, 1874.
% Bassors Dsmocrdtss 81 tdsenadn- Isee alcaFd
published by Mr. A. 8. Mar, in which he
states that the Committee on Asylums never
gave him chance TO explain the tTansac
tons Of the firm Of Stuart q Mair in The
Eunatic Asylum frauds This statement Is
not true, and be KNOWS, that every oppogtu-
nifty was given him 10 explain. The COM
mittee summoned him more than once be-
fore them, Tor the purpose Of giving him
q chance TO relieve said drFh from any
elaRges of corruption; and the commit
tee had Mr. Stuart before them, and
they stated TO him. that they had evidence
before them that implicated the frm
and that It would be necessary for him 70
1--WE ne c0mmittee list 0f the hfms from
whom he purchased goods for the Lunatie
Asylum, and that the firm must explain
their transactions With the steward Of the
Asyiun. These gentlemen were before the
eonnnittee Before their first report was made,
and their names would have been insepted
IA the first report; but time was extended
70 them 70 give the COMMITTEES ? good rea-
con why their names should not be ex-
posed IN connection with others. VIII Mr..
Gair deny that he did not come before the
COMMITTEES with Mr. Leon Blum, When 1ff.
NANaANIAE-A
that said firm made with Leon & II, Blum
for the Lunatic AsyIum7 VIII he deny that
be brought G. s. West, ESQ, before the
committee as his attorneys And will
be deny that Ibid not tell him in the
Capitol that i would have the re-
port held up until toward The end
o. tie session for the purpose Of giving
him chance TO Remove aIi charges agRiBst
him1 think Il due 70 Mr, NaiE and myself
20 give an explanation Of the conversation
that passed with regard 70 bis name being
incofpofated 10 the report Of the COMMITTEES :
On tie niorning that our first report was
submitted, AS Mair met nc IN tho Oapi-
tOl and asked me IL bis name vas
IN the report told him that il was /;
md hB remarked that he would rather
than 5000 that his name would not Be m
serted. and that Il would iniure him iu
business. i replied thai money NOR busi-
ness was not considered II making up our
report, but that / wab sakishcd chat The
conmittss would give him further TINE 20
nst uD evidences - rsbut the evidences that
Was then before the committee The time
was eEsnted bY the committee, but no safis-
factory exp ianatIOn was ever gwen, notWlth-
Etandfnf ~ 1laif vas 81 en- Before the com
uit1as nftar fhia did not regard lll.
5fnFa remark - o9erinE me anytaiu8, but
an az loss TO know Why BE would make
such remark.
re nceoanls ssl cut IA our last report
.urulxs fur themselves. a copy 81 The &C.
cent puFehaeed Of Blum ca ae seen g he
/ . ice 81 n. g. shelley Esq-, and the one
tfAf stuart q Hair drew their warrant On
- &c found in tlis Comptrolier's Once,
ana nn q lhg opinl1n lIfnl othef5 can Be
/ 80 ~ 4 .eiuflr1 ciIaEanfcf. have 10
/ f-eiis0 arnfhst anY one cunnocted Win this
/ iirrr. sliI aIaiT. en- sorry that the firm
I of Etualt f Crct cofn1clod 81 tIgt
rltt Is 'iIalo11 arIn1l tie STATE
/ ne crElruif,rS eet form t1els 81 their ~
nusts EsI a ~ e7idonoc. an1 fho7 haTe
ncIainq q discIrim. nrettfuilT.
.. eIlFHEs.