The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-05-31
A Card to the Public.

1t Is generally known that nave Deen
charged before United States Commits
sioner with having forged the name of
Samuel Hopkins, late United States Fed
eral clerk at Austin, on several drafts
drawn in his favor, for amounts allowed
him by the government. Pending inves-
tigation, it would not be proper for me to
enter into details of the various matters
which have eliminated in this charge;
but it is permissible for me to say that
the prosecution is without foundation
that am gultless of crime by act, word,
or intent; and it is permissible for me to
say further, that, when Mr.. Hopkins was
in dire necessity, advanced to him nearly
$4,000, taking from him powers of attor-
ney to collect his accounts against the
government, and to endorse and collect all
drafts that might be drawn in his favor
for accounts, allowed. This to
advanced, balances, if any, to be paid over
to him or on his order. Drafts in his
favor did come to me. | did endorse and
collect them; this did by virtue of the
powers aforesaid. The amounts did not
reach 2,300-hundreds of dollars less
than the sum l had advanced. 1t is true
that it is claimed that the powers of at
torney are void; but, however that may be,
l acted in every step under the advice of
reputable attorneys.
| refer to the subjoined statements of
lawyers who are familiar with all the facts,
and confidently hope that the ill-advised
charge may not be the means of wronging
me in the esteem of people with whom l
have lived an honorable and upright life
for so many years. A. P. WOODBRIDGE.
Some time since the parties who have
instituted the prosecution against Mr..
Woodbridge came to me and laid their
facts before me. dismissed them under
promise to look into the matter fully and
would see them on day named. Prior to
the day for them to return, having arrived
at satisfactory conclusions, from a thor
ough investigation of facts and law,
wrote to them, saying in regard to civil
action for money:
81 cannot succeed in a suit against Mr.
Woodbridge. The claims cannot be legal
ly enforced" In regard to criminal pros
ecution 1 said: ~ am thoroughly satisfied
that nothing can be accomplished, and
that it would be wise not to inaugurate
any proceedings" This was on April II
last. The federal grand jury have met
since-the court been in session-and the
United States district attorney present
Nothing was done looking to a prosecu-
ton. The facts were then as they are
now. In my judgment, there is not sin
gle element of crime in the acts of Mr.
Woodbridge. W. M. WALTON.
Some months since the law firm Of
which am member, was employed by
Mrs. Hopkins to look after her interests
in the claims of her husband, Samuel aop'
kins, against the United States govern
ment, and subsequently we were engaged
by Mr.. E. g. janis to secure for him 6
debt due from Hopkins and to be paid
from these same claims.
At no time, during the negotiations il
reference to these matters, have observed
any act upon the part of Mr.. A. P. Wool
bridge which considered criminal, or ever
dishonorable. We have, at all times, SO
far as l am aware, before and since thu
institution of the pending prosecution
advised that no criminal offense had beer
committed, and we have no professional
connection with that prosecution.
A. s. WALKER, JR.