The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1877-08-16
VOL. vi.



John II. Gibson, contractor for Oys-
ter creek, Caney and the Bernari, has
published statement in the Galveston
Neus touching that made by Mr..
White, which was referred to a few
days since. He explains that, having
obtained the contract, he entered into
an arrangement with A. NJ. Hobby to
supply him with means to carry out
the works, and then refers to the
White statement as follows:
Some time in the latter part of May,
1876, / was called to Galveston by
Hohb1. when informed that there was
some trouble about the certificatesthat
had been issued, aad something had
to be done to satisfy Governor Coke,
and Col. A. II. Hobby wrote the Gov
ernor, which he required sse to copy
and send over my signature, asking
him to appoint new engineer to re-
survey and report on work done. He
appointed Gen. Bragg, who made an
examinatIon of the contested matter
and reported faFoTabl5, ghich satisfied
the Governor, and Gen. Bragg was
then appointed ss the regular inspector,
and was go up to the tiIas Of his death.
Now, as there was a great deal said
and much excitement from exaggerated
reports, Col. Hobby asked me il |
could not get some statements OF pro
gress of Csney work from commission
ers to have published iR the STATES
MAN, and atGa letter from tEem 10
the Governor. by reply was that l
thought so, aud would try. lie wrote
such an instrument for the STATESMAN
and letter to the Governor, and asked
me If they would sign them. | told
him | ibGgaht they would. Beng
then IN Gllvrs;on, | coyered them to
my sor, j. l. Gibson, jr., with in
structions for Linn ~ copy the letters
off and see the commissioners on Caney
and ask them, if consistent with their
duties, please to sign them.
He returned to Hobby & Posts Of
fee IN Galveston 9Th only one signed,
and that to the SFATEsSAs, alleging
that they were not willing to sign the
one TO the Govern, On receipt
OF this paper addressed to the STATES
MAN, with my sons explanation, | was
in Col. 4. D.. Hohby's private Office,
where we inspected thp returned
signed paper. Hobby said ''the
STATESMAN will not publish this, for
the reason of its opposition to the
whole matter" and as he was anxious
for the Governor to see it he proposed
to take copy of it before it was for
warded to The STATESMAN office, and
inclose it to the GoVernor for his in
spection in case of refusal Of the
STATESMAN to publish it. a copy was
sent to the Governor and the original
to the STATESMAN. That paper re-
fused to publish it.
Now, l would ask any unprejudiced
mind, would any sane man tamper
with paper, the original going to q
paper requested to be published, and a
copy to The Governor for his perusal,
and all located in one city, and at the
same time9 For the Governor could
but have detected at q glance and 1t
would have been hopelessly damn ID.
This paper was published by G. NJ.
Bryan some months after in the Neacs.
Capt. White then said it was NOT exact
ly the paper he had signed, and it had
been tampered with, As matter Of
course l was greatly troubled at the
moment, ard went right off to Calves
ton to have the matter looked into, and
ask the Macs not to publish Whites
statement, giving me time to send to
Austin for the original which report
cd to Capt. White and got his sanctiAn
to the course l had taken. l made
every effort in my power to obtain the
original, bot YSs answered 10y one Of
the editors OF the STATksA+g that the
manuscript had been destroyed, and
could not be found. Icalled on A. NJ.
Hobby, who wrote the article. He said
he waS willing to make oath.it was the
identical wording as the copy in>the
hands of the Governor, and as he wSs
the author of it had the best right to
know,
1 stated these facts to the Caney
Commissioners, White being one, and
tried TO make them understand, with
the destruction of the original by the
STATESMAN, the difficulty OF arriving at
anything satisfactory, and | supposed
all was right, as Capt. White wrote to
the NeScS withdrawing the charge II
the matteF,
This extract again shows the sottlad
course of the STATESMAN upon this
matter. 1t opposed the bill as fraud
ulent one, and after Gen. Bragg hat
made his report about Oyster creek
this dis iuguished gentleman cal'et
upon the STATESMAN in this city, ant
attempted to induce US to speak favor
ably of the Oyster creek matter. HI
was told that no favorable mention
would be made of anything arising
from the bill, and If he really iusistet
upon the publication of his report, i
would be attacked. we desire tn,
public to know that the STATESMAN op
posed this Law before it had been com
piled with, f1t when it was permitted
to be oarried into eject aud certificate
issued upon the work, newspaper oppt
sition could then amount to nothing.
then became question for the court
to decide upon, and having made on
record upon the matter, We had no dis
position to raise senseless howl whcr
too late. The question nov has re
solved itself into disputes between ex
ecutive branches of the government
and we have no reason or night to sa
that Commissioner Groos has acte,
carruptIy or illegally, or that Governo
Hubbard has been either derelict il
his duty or over-zealous. 1t is cor
soling, to US at least, that the STATES
NAN made its fight at time whe
its warning. IL heecea, wauld hss
s,ved all these troubles and unpleassn
disputes in quarters where everythln!
should be harmonious.