The San Antonio light. (San Antonio, Tex.) 1883-1886, 1885-02-25
INVESTIGATION BY THE CITY
COUNCIL.
The Evidence Addueed In the trial
OF City Attorney Newton
Continued.

one, WHICH vi lnNtrllkh'loh HioN'' WV
In conflict with the city charter, and de-
clared that invalid.
q. What was the deficiency of the
new ordinance? A. | think 1t was n
violation Of the charter. | thought the
city had no power to punish gambling.
q. After that did the city pass
another A. After the last one, no; not
TO my knowledge.
Q. You were exercising the power OF
n magistrate in this city? A. AS
Recorder.
o. Did the act OF the Legislature
make you suchg A. There was some
question as to whether they could give
maglsterial power, 1t being in violation
of the city ordinance. Judge Rosen-
heimer had tried II, and he was told not
to do 1t. They wanted revenues for the
city and not for the officers of the court.
Senator Houston for defendant. Y
Did Mr.. Newton not do his full duty In
pressing the question and arguing II be-
fore your Honor and endeavored to sus-
tain the ordinnnoeg A. think he
knew; in fact, know he did all that he
knew how.
Marshal Shardein reported that Mr..
tCkloiu was unhDle 10 pItrtW HilHe'H
LEO TARIETON.
q. What is your business, sir? \.
Attorney at law.
Q. How long have you been an at
torneyY A. For 10 years.
q. You have had some experience.
A.. Yes. sir; some.
O. Did you have under investigation
the question of validity of power of the
1,,,pnfl -. nnptlh Yan.tnny
the summer of 1883, Reddick came to
me. The first employment | had from
Reddiok was subsequent TO the date Of
Noonan's ruling. II | remember now
they were dismissed, because Of the fine
being In conflict with that imposed by
the State. After that there was
new ordinance passed, this
one now In question, and during the
ii ne, those reputed to be gambling
rooms were closed and | was employed
by Reddick to test the matter, and gave
II very careful investigation. My opin-
ion was then, ms now, that no lawyer
could draw any ordinance that would
hold. The first reason that the charter
of the city was In conflict with the law
OF the State. The first ordinance made
the penalty too small and the next ordi-
nance attempted TO impose imprson-
ment by the Recorder. while the Legis-
luture could not impart 1t. At the time
Anderson and myself represented Mr.
Reddick.
Cross-examned:
Q. Do you remember dates? A. Not
exactly, but can refer back.
q. might have misunderstood you.
In the portion of the grant by
the Legislature of the city charter
of San Antonio. do you think that grent
exceeded the power of the Legislature
A. forget exactly what that was now.
q. Were you at that time the regular
attorney of ReddickY A. No, sir.
Q. When were you first employed by
him? A. After the closing ofthe gamb-
ling houses after that ordinance; that Is,
for that ease.
q. DO you have professional assistance
in fighting the ordinance? a. ! had Mr..
NJ. G. Anderson.
O. Was Eckford there? A. don't re-
collect that he was there: If he was there
after 1t, did not see him there.
q. Did you know anything about n
contract between Reddick and Eckford
In which the sum OF 800 was or was TO
be paid for in regard to this ordinance +?
A. have heard there was n contract; |
never seen II at all.
q. But did you see 1t then? A. Red
dick q Berliner may have had such q
thing.
Q. Did you have any conversation
with Newton about them? A. merely
told him.
q. What did he reply? A. He as
scented; he admitted that Ii was fact:
that he heard afterwards, but he knew
nothing about the time ut all. Eckiord
had received the contract, but he had
nothing to do with Ii.
Q. When was that conversation? A.
Since this investigation.
Q. lie was talking to you profession
| ally? A. No sir.
Q. lie stated that Eckford made the
contract? A. | stated that had heard
10 told that contract was made with
Eckford, and he said he had also asked
Berliner If such contract had been
made, and he stated that they had seen
Eckford and that he had given 1t MS his
opinion that the ordinance was fatally
defective, and until the charter could
be amended 1t would require some time
before the Legislature was called, and
that he would guarantee. for the sum of
$500. to hold the gamblers from any sue
cessful'y prosecution In the city of san
Antonio, and ut that time he had
been paid 500, and that Newton
merely remarked he had heard that
something Of that kind had been done
also, but he was not partner of Mr.
Eckford outside of city matters
q. Indirectly or directly did he state
anythingY A. No, sir, he did not.
l.. e. GRoTHAUs.
q. You are an attorney at law? A.
| Yes.
Q. How long have You praotced /?
| a. About II years.
2. Have you any cause to inquire
into the gambling ordinances of San
Antonio? A. My office was adjoining
the office Of Eckford q Newton. and we
had open the partition door between.
After the decision by Judge Noonan n
| new ordinance was drawn up-during
the spring. don't know when-and the
matter was talked about then at the
Office, Newton being the City Attorney
and was DESTROYS Of drawing up an ordi-
nance that might prove good. | then
looked at the laws simply for infOrma-
non, and found that the law prescribing
the jurisdiction of recorders and MAYORS
In towns differed materially from the
provisions OF the city charter. The city
charter provided different penalty. I
thought that the penalty should have
been the same. | knew that the law
was that 1t should not be less, and
the city charter provided for fine
or an Imprisonment. The law re-
quired that persons should be fined
and imprisoned. ! suggested at the time
that the thing was for Legislature to
change the city charter; special proyi-
sion in the city charter against gaming
and draft 1t In the city charter, no one
/ could have drawn one: there WINS nnite