Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-08-11
In REPLY.
City Attorney swsyne Takes Up the
Councils Communication.
And Gives His Version Of the Question
in Controversy.
The People Of the City Appealed to to
Sustain the officers in Dis
charging their Duty.

PIE- lnttsiuucD Us you nave seen
proper TO publish an article In your
paper that reflects upon my personal
character as well as official conduct,
beg that you publish this, not for the
edification Of the gentlemen who have
seen proper TO Islander me In the
columns of newspaper, but that an
impartial public may at least hear
both sides before they Judge too
hastily.
In The outset, will state that Mr..
J. +. Hughes tells me in the presence
OF A. NJ. Carter that the article az
printed In your paper Is materially
changed from the one he signed; that
for several hours j. d. Askew, Richard
Flanagan, j. u. Alexander and
Julian Field were after him 10 answer
an article published by me against the
city council, wherein that honorable
body was insulted.
In the first place, your paper will
testify to the fact that 1 have never
published anything against the city
council, In fact 1t was ut my request
that nothing was said by your paper
in reference to the resolution about
which az this communication has
arisen. You remember the day after
ward the Democrat wrote a small arti-
Gle upon the resolution, In which my
explanation was not properly given,
ana which was calculated 10 injure me
with those VIII, did not understand
the situation. When II representative
of your paper had the kindness to APP
proach me, In the presence oi Richard
Flanagan, then told MIR. Hoelzle, one
of the editors Of your paper, that he
wes present ut the time the resoluti, n
was read and passed, then, after hear
Ing my side OF the case, rec0nsiuered
and Withdrawn, and that would only
be too glad, II his space would permit,
that he would give the matter to the
public as II happened, which he
did without any assistance or
dictation from me Whatever. | think
he reported the matter about correctly.
the Evening Democrat, paper which
appreciates the trials which
an officer In the discharge of his ofli-
cial duty has To undergo, does me the
Justice, without any request whatever
from me, to correct the article 80
hastily written the evening previous.
Therefore, you see, Mr.. Editor,
that these representatives OF the
two papers were present them.
selves at the meeting, and IL Is passing
strange that they both substantially
agree "a TO the facts. II IL due Ia the
city council as body TO here say they
Withdrew the resolution In question,
and had then hoped the matter was
settled. After my explanations were
given, which to a majority ol the cOun-
ell were entirely satisfactory, the mat
ter should have been dropped. did
say at the time ! was speaking TO your
representative that mot what had
failed to do, but what had
done, was the matter with
some Of the city council" In ref
erence to the Sunday and vagrant
law. That remark was not intended
for publication, yet the manner In
that my reputation had been assailed,
undoubtedly led the person who wrote
the article 80 to construe my meaning.
However, since IL has gone into print,
as coming from me, ] say that |
have grounds TO believe that If II had
not been for my independent action.
the slanderous article would never
have been published against me. TAX
ing up the charges Against me- In IA
simple and plain manner | will dis
cuss them.
In reference to IL being my duty tn
draft ordinances, the gentlemen would
like TO know where the local of THE
GAZETTE got his information. IL Is
my understanding he was present
taking notes of what hap
pened in the council meeting.
He was warranted in saying this from
the fact that he heard several mem.
bers of the council say so In the discus
sion OF the question, Mr. Aldrldge and
Col. Smith being among the number
who more than once made use Of the
expression. argued that II was the
business of the city councii To write
their own laws --n0t that they
had not seen proper 10 SHIFT that
duty from their own broad shoulders
To mine, and asked them where was
the legislature of any state that made
II duty Of the attorney general to
write their laws for them. And here
say that IL is natural for anyone to
suppose that the people would elect
men of sufficient ability to the position
of aldermen who were qualified to
write their own laws. The section OF
the ordinance to which they refer does
not In itself make IL my duty to
write the laws, any more than II
does anything else that the
council may ask me 10 do, but simply
says that for writing ordinances,
bonds contracts, etc., shall receive
the sum of $40 per nnnum. 10 being
susceptible, however, of that construc-
ton have always taken great pleas
ure la writing any ordinance which
any alderman required me TO write.
As to my saying that had written 1873
ordinances, Mr., Hoelzle got that from
my remarks To tho council i'm answer
to u charge against mo by Alderman
Askew, the "Jumbon OF the Third
ward, in which he had said that on
last Tuesday Ilwas ordered TO write n
health ordinance, and that 1 had re-
marked that II wAs difficult to write
and would take some time to do II,
whcreup0n the members OF the board
OF health, together with the city ply
slclan and myself, were appointed as n
committee to meet ut the city hall on
the Thursday following to decide the
kind OF an ordinance to write,
whereupon la violation az any agree
iinent / failed 70 meet the balance of
the committee. My explanation was
that ON the Tuesday which the council
met, IL being q special meeting and
not known to me that there would be
ANY meeting, / WAS In Palestine,
Texas. and did not return from there
until Thursday evening ats o'clock,
vt which time l met portion
OF the committee, just ~ they
had left the hall. where
nllon I asked them II there was