The San Antonio light. (San Antonio, Tex.) 1883-1886, 1885-02-27
MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE.
INVESTIGATION BY THE CITY
COUNCIL.
The Evidence Addueed in the Trial
OF City Attorney Newton
Concluded.


year lSSl? A. was.
q. When were you first elected City
Attorney A. In 1881.
q. You have served in that capacity
ever SINGER A. Yes, sir.
q. You know, of course. the charges
made against you; wish you would
state the character Of your partnership
with Eckford? A. Eckford and ! were
partners In 1881; after ! was appointed
city Attorney. under our agreement Of
partnership, we divided equally in all
business that came into the Office with
the exception Of my salary as City At
torney, only that | was to have no inter-
est whatever in any case that he might
have In the Recorders court. That is
about It,
q. Was that contract observedY A.
Yes, | suppose Eckford, during the time
we were in partnership, appeared In tue
Recorders court 10, 20 or % times,
openly and Lotoriously; there was no
division of fees, and received nothing
from him.
Q. DO you know anything about this
contract spoken Of at the time it was
formed? A. did not know; never
had any interest then nor since, and not
n single cent was received by me.
q. Did you make any allowance for
1t in your interest in partnership. A. |
did not.
Q. Did you ever indirectly obtain
any of this money? A. That question
is very hard to answer. Ecklord was in
my debt all the time we were in partner
ship and frequently paid me money on
account. TO my knowledge never re-
ceiyed n cent Of this money directly or
indirectly and knew nothing about 1t
until after IL was entered into.
q. What did You do with reference
to the drafting of this ordinance, and
when was it drafted. A. This ordi-
nance was drafted Immediately after
Judge Noonan had declared the old
ordinances In conflict with the
State law. would like to explain
the position of the city in relation
10 this; under our charter, section IS,
We are authorized to suppress gaming
OF all kinds and descriptions by foroible
entry Of the houses, etc. The old ordi-
naIce, us it stood, stated that this
species of defence was punishable by n
fine of 500 and put to hard labor on the
public wOAs of this city. An ordinance
prescribing n less penalty than the State
law should be invaldated by the Re
vised statutes. Speaking from memo
randa on March !, 1883, number OF
parties were arrested under the old or
dlnance for gaming; they were tried;
position was taken that our ordinance
a. Inv an IA /
fact less. penalty than the state law.
The case of sam Moore was Immediate
~ appealed to the District court, by
which this ease remained in allegiance,
| and the ease came up for for or i've
| DAYS at the District court ana the Judge
took the view represented by the cOun-
| sci for tue defendant. | Immediately
made that known TO some member OF the
| Council, If not by direct communication
TO the City Council; ut last ! was in
| siructed to draw up another ordinance
| furnishing gaming. | stated my opinion
| In open council that | did not think |
4 could draw up an ordinance covering
this oilense. | know | stated ut the
time would draw up one and submit It,.
Immediately drew up the one submit
ted in evidence; that ordinance hung
until March lG, for eight or ten days
| after the first ordinance was declared in
valid, and it hung fire until its final pas
sage, on May 10. Major Dwyer brought
in II minority report declaring we needed
Legislation. The statute does not allow
any ordinance to inilict less penalty,
and thought might cure this defect
by increasing the penalty. Very soon
after that Ordinonce was passed Reddick
was arrested on July o and tried on July
IL. represented the city and did all !
could to make the ordinance stand. AS
far as having made an agreement, directly
or indirectly, not to suppress this 0iiel Sc,
believe that every person who has
been acquainted with me knows that
have used everything in my power to
see II suppressed.
Q. In your conduct as City Attorney
were you ever consulted. Influenced OF
biased by Eckford's position or employ
ment? A. This ordinance was drawn
up and introduced into the Council be.
fore ever knew Eckford was employ,
in the matter.
Q. Did you know when Eckford wal
employed? A. | don't know; | woult
like TO state that about the 9TH, Sth OF
9th - | went into my office one day
and | found Messrs. Reddck, Yates
and don't recolleot whether Steveni
was there or not. and ! remembel
Reddick said to me, "Would you like Il
make lest case under the ordinance ?
| made this remark, 81 would consul
with the Recorder about 1t, and II HI
agreed | would be willing" and that Il
the only remark made. consulted witt
the Recorder in relation to 1t before VI
drew II up.
q. AT the time you went into tn
Office and saw the parties did you know
their purpose? A. Did not know a
the time that Eckiord was employed.