The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1886-06-03
BROWNS CHARGES,
THE TEMPEST IN THE TEAPOT IS
BOILING AND SIZZING


Mr.. W. M. Brown, in his letter to tn,
Galveston News, ends with the following
seven indictments:
Now, Messrs. Editors, to sum up the
facts established about Comptroller SVair
are these
l. He has had two sons in his Office
drawing pay for a considerable time as
employees, when they were students in
regular attendance at the university.
2. When called on by the house of rep.
resentatives for list of the entire force
employed on January l, 1885, he sup.
pressed the names of H. and w. Swain,
which should, in fairness and candor, have
been included therein.
3. He suppressed the name of his
Waterman in said list, and has since
given me misleading statement con-
corning the Waterman, still suppressing
the name.
4. He put in two names, as dummies. in
said list, who he necessarily knew at
the time were not employees of the
office.
.. He gave me loose and incorrect
report of the aggregate amount paid
employees in January, 1885, which is at
variance both with the amount shown by
warrants certified to by the treasurer and
the amount derived from his list furnished
the house; the last being also contradicted
by the treasurer's statement.
b. He knowingly overpaid H. Swain, vi
olatlng his own exact rule of audit.
Z. He knowingly allowed pay to be
drawn by somebody Il don't know by
whom in the name of young lady, then
an inmate of his family, who was in no
way connected as an employee with the
Office"
As to the first one, Col. SWANS sons
were not regular employees while students
at the university, and the only ground for
the charge is that they were employed
to do overwork at night and
were thus taken on for special
jobs alone, which the article itself shows
in another place.
=. They were not regular employees, |
and hence their names should not appear |
on the list of regular employees.
D. The name of the Waterman was well |
known to Coz. Brown and his suggestion
that 1t was one of Col. SWANS sons is
done with full knowledge of the fact.
4. The two names were put in mad
vertently and the list itself shows that
they drew no salary. This list is open to
the inspection of the public.
.. This is mistake of Col. Browns.
IN that he failed to get all of the vouchers.
leaving off four which just make up the
S45 deficiency he speaks of.
+. tie charges that H. Swain was over
paid 50, saying that he left Austin two DAYS
before he did. He charges that he left on
the 9TH of September, when IN reality he
lett on the llth, thus showing the falsity
Of this charge.
l. This last charge is the most I'M
worthy of the whole set. She was Miss
Lulie Cockerell, daughter of Judge and
niece of Senator Cockerell. She was a
regularly employed clerk at salary of
$40 per month, and her work is in the
olhce to show for itself. Her mother
wrote and requested Mrs. Swain that she
et her daughter stay at her house, and
mere she worked. The pay was drawn by
me young lady for herself and no one
'ise' A fuller explanation is not neces-
'ary' as the charges are rebutted on the
very race by their insignifcance.
Colonel Swain characterized the charges
Is "A fabrication, untrue and slanderous."