The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-08-16
REPLY OF DIR. BURT AND COL.
RUTHERFORD
To Governor John Ireland OH the
Reasons Assigned for Their Re
naval

To Governor John Ireland OH thu
Reasons Assigned for Their Re
mOVal:
We regret very much to be forced
to answer John Ireland, governor
very plainly on the "reasons" he rs
signed and published last Sunday
morning. We wish it distinctly un
derstood that the governor has beer
the aggressor in the whole correspOn,
dence. He first charges that a "petty
scandal surrounds the management
of the asylum We demanded of hin
to know if it concerned the board OF
managers. He refused to answer the
question, but like tyrant who cares
nothing for law and the
rights and equities of indi
viduals, deposed two members
And he did this Immediately after he
was informed that the board was go
ing to investigate the management by
the superint endent by fair investi
cation and for the purpose OF correct
ing abuses if they did exist. They
propose to enquire into the abuse OF
inmates said to exist there, such as
strapping one over the shoulders by
a heavy leather strap, abusing another
and breaking his arm, fastening
others in the halls to benches, subject
to the kicks and abuse of any who
came along, and then retaining in his
employ the attendants who performed
this work. These abuses were report
ed to exist at the asylum. Many
other reports came to the board and
they felt called upon to investigate
them, and were going to do it, but the
governor would not allow it. In re-
gard to the female attendant who was
used by the superintendent as pri-
vate servant. mentioned heretofore,
and which he pronounced false, we
refer to Miss Mary Franks, who was
matron of the asylum and to other
officers of the asylum, for the
truth of our statement.
He next records and publishes his
reasons for the removal. We now
propose to answer his reasons and
show their fallacy.s
l. HesayS: 1.-THE board of managers,
led by DIR. Burt and Col. Rutherford,
removed or dismissed a humber of
employees"
We answer: The board of managers
never removed or dismissed an en-
ploye while we were connected with
the asylum, but on the contrary the
superintendent, from month to month,
without warrant of law, did remove
and dismiss employees, and never even
notified the board of the facts and cir
cumstances. See article No. 72, Sec
ton 3, new asylum law, which says:
"The board of managers shall have
power to discharge upon the recon-
mendation of the superintendent any
officer, employe or patient in the asy-
lumS."
2. He says: "and refused TO confirm
or reappoint others after they were
nominated by the superintendent
We answer: The board never re-
fused, during six months manage
ment, to confirm or reappoint but one
person nominated, and that was the
wife of the superintendent as matron.
3. He says: "Thus leaving the in
stitution without its usual and accus-
toned and necessary assistance"
We answer, How the governor,
knowing the facts, would file as mat
ter of official record such statement
is beyond our compreh 3nsion. With
the exception mentioned, the board
never deprived the institution of it's
usual and necessary assistancel In
the case of two nominations where
action was postponed, the sqperin-
tendent was authorized to continue
them in their positions, which he did
so the institution was not deprived of
its assistance as the governor alleges.
He says: "The breach prevented the
board from going into the Office at
the institution to tran act its ordina-
ry business"
We answer; The board never
failed when at the asylum to go into
the office to transact its ordinary bust
ness. The board made one visit to the
asylum at the request of Capt. Mather,
for the specific purpose, to examine
and receive the water connections he
had made with the asylum, The
board went on the grounds, made the
examination of the work and the
cost of the same and returned to
Austin. They had no other business
to transact.
The breach, assigned as the reason
by the governor, unfortunately, like
most his other statements in his
record of reasons" existsin his brain
OeAI WAobOub a LOU w ouOObtA H.
5. He says "The board passed an
order restricting the use of carriage,
horses, etc., so as to preclude the idea
of members using them"
We answer: The board passed no
such order, but they did pass resolu-
ton, made by Col. Rutherford and
seconded and voted for by Capt. Will
son, stating their disapproval of car
riage, horses, etc., for private purposes,
but did not restrict their use for Off
cial and state purposes. Yet Gov.
Ireland advised the superintendent,
through his next friend, before the
board visited the asylum at the re-
quest of Capt. Mather, to refuse to
send the carriage after the board to at
tend to official business.
He says: Showing disposition
to annoy the superintendent"
We answer: The statement is not
true, and the governor has either will
fully or ignorantly said it. As a state
document that list of reasons" with
the above conclusion of the governor,
based, as we have shown, on false