The Baltimore County union., 1883-01-20
SENATOR wILLIAMs's ANSWER.
His Sons Decd OF Trust Made by Himself
for His Own Protection.

From hs Baifimors San.
The answer of the Hon. Gcorge Hawkins vii.
Ia,ns President Of the State Senate to the bill Of
complain, recently ded by his son. says thai IL he
hal no other relation e. the than hat Of an
ordinary defendant he would SC, forth the entire
history Of the Transaction in controversy, but that
this would be impossible without painful iisclo-
cures affecting the lie and conduct Of his son.
severe Illness with which the complainant was AZ
fec,cd in his early years. and from the effects Of
which he has never entirely recovered. always
made him object of tender sOlicitudc to his pa
rents lie was not subjected to the restraints
their other children. and allowed greater
liberties than il appears were beneficial 10 him..
To keep him out Of idicness his grandfather gave
him employ ymcnt, but he became addicted 10 the
free use o: spiriiaCus liquors that in 1879 hi,
grandfather discharged him. lie then became an
ijier about town, and fell into very bal habits.
The answer further says that by the will of the
late John :. Git,ings the respondent and his wife
had the i:ht to distribute the nin;hs of the
estate devised 10 her children in such proportions
TO them might seem just. Although advised 90
do the respondent refused TO exercise this
power against the complainant. The com.
plainan, once conveyed his property TO his mother
with n trust similar TO that now In controversy,
but by the advice of his father the deed was can
eelcd. Aitcr the death Of the eomplainant's
mother his habits of dissipation increased. and he
was gradually wasting his body and means. Per.
ceiving the necessity of protecting gains,
himself. he had prepared deed Of trust similar to
the one now In controversy, but did not execute
II. Subsequently, however, under the pressure Of
grea, embarrassment and personal complications
he REQUIRED 20 his previous purpose. Accordingly
on May 81, 1851, without the knowledge of his
father, accompanied by a relative, he applied TO
the same gentleman who prepared tho formss
deed 10 draft him another deed, saying that VI
was going abroad. and before leaving wished 20
place his property in the hands Of his best friend
his father.
At tha; time respondent was officially engaged
In another part Of the city, at the home of Mr..
Otis keilhoiiE. Speaker of the House Of Delegates.
who was III, signing laws with the Governor fthe
State. 4 note was handed to him asking if he
would accept the trust. II was drawn without n
single suggestion from respondent, and was taken
10 the record Office by hs son. and the cost Of
coriins paid by the son out of his own pocket.
Such, Mr.. Williams AYERS. are the facts attend.
ing the execution of the deed oftrust, deed most
beneficial TO the Interests of the complainant. and
under which the respondent can acquire nothing
except in n remote and improbable contingency.
lie get. nothing for the managencn of his sons
estate, the usual commissions not being desired.
so far from limiting his 10 the 80 600 set forth
in the deed. he has made use Of the Discretionary
power conferred 90 increase his sons allowance.
The annual income of his son l. from 81, 600 10
1900. and the complainant has been permitted To
expend from the time of the execution of the deed
$500. or ut the rate of about $4,000 per annum
The respondent declares that his only anxiety is
how he may s,ill protect his sou from himself and
from those designing persons who are ever on the
watch 10 ontrap young men suddenly enriched and
incapable from ineIperienee or otherwise, Of pro.
tecting themselves.