The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1877-08-09
THE sTATEsMAN AND THE
RIVER RELL.


The Galveston Ne1s publishes let
ter, dated Caney creek, July 80, 1877,
in which the writer gives a statement
from J. K. White, one of the commls-
sioners for Caney, as to certain repre-
sentstions made to Governor Coke
about the contract on that stream. His
explanation is given in the Wees as fol
lows: .r-
On the twentieth Of May, 1876, Col.
Gibson visited Capt. White and the
Hawkins and +. F. Gibson-and
showed to them letter purportipg to
be communication TO the Austin
STATESMAN. As you are aware, the
STATESMAN opposed the scheme fer
cleaning out and making navigable the
Caney, Bernard and Oyster Creek
streams, and saw in 1t huge swiudle
Wen, this paper was an earnest protest
| against the course the STATESMAN was
pursuing, and demonstrating with the
editor and contrsdictiDg maay state
msnts of the STATESMAN. Among
other things, it claimed that the un-
dertakiBg was laudable one, and set
forth how much it was nccded-that
what had already been accomplished
on the Caney was of almost Inestima-
ole value to the community, etc. This
paper they readily indOrsed with their
signatures. But in addition to this,
he presented paper containing re-
! port or recommendation to Governor
! Coke, slying that the work on Caney
was progressing finely, and the con-
tractors were doing all that could be
desired, etc. THIS document they pos.
,tive'y and peremptorily refused to
sign, because they were not certain
that such was the case. They had not
at that time inspected it, and had
no means Of knowing how much
had been done, or in what man
ner; and while they felt free
to contradict the STATESMAN as to the
practicability of the enterprise, they
were not prepared to sign an official
document setting forth to the Governor
that the work was being done in
proper manner. The letter to the Aus
tin paper was written on one side of
four pages by the same hand tnat
penned the letter to Governor Coke.
Col. Gibson, it appears, after being
baked in the manner above described,
determined to use the signatures he
had obtained in different manner
than was designed. So, destroying
such portions of the Austin letter us he
could not use to advantage in address
ing the Governor, he dovetailed the
remaining portion of it with the Coke
letter, and thus made an official (2)
certificate to the State authorities, and
so accomplished his aims without any
thanks to the commissioners. OF course
the Austin letter never appeared; but
the signatures to it were forwarded to
the Governor with remarkable dis
p~>"h and, instead of being used to pro-
test hSSlhsU N]a STATEsMAN's course,
they were made to o~y to Governor
Coke that the work WIS pros. .,oaing
finely, and the Caney had been cleaned
out, freed of all distractions and made
navigable for fiftv miles, and that they
heartily indorsed the action of the
contractor.
We give place to this extract from
1hO iSI'Si iOlOllSu w. W ShO" IuC pOol'
ton maintained by the STATESMAN. 1t
may also be proper to state that such
letter was received, but It's tenor be-
ing in direct opposition to opinions
often expressed, it was rejected; AMI
further than this, the manuscHPt was
not returned to Mr.. Gibsos, but was
finally destroyed among the refuse
papers of this office. The STATESMAN,
knowing this law to be a bad one, was
opposed to 1t before and even after its
passage; bus after It has been executed,
as far as we know, according to
its provisions, we do not propose to
chime in with those crying fraud un-
til fraud has been proven. The de
pravity of this age is undoubtedly very
great, and one of the greatest evil
dences of this depravity is the manner
in which such unauthorized assertions
are too readily made. Mr.. Groos has
been twice nominated for State posi-
ion by representative bodies,
that should be regarded capable of
judging as to the fitness of men for
holding Offices of trust, and though he
has executed, like many other officers
have done, bad law, with which the
pages of our statute books are filed, we
have seen no occasion get for pro-
nouncing him, as some papers do, a
dishonest man or a thief.