The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-07-03

agreement was entered into your OPP
position ceased? Did you not see
and read Wilkes interview pub
lished at the same time? Did
not Wilkie charge in that interview
that one day in your private Office you
made him proposition to sell him
tract of land for $35 900, and that you
said, "Wilkie if you buy it, it will
make you both rich and happy"
And did he not further say in that in
terview that he refused to bay the
land, saying he had no'use for it and
no money just then to invest in land,
and that it was after this refusal to
buy your land that you commenced to
trump up defects in the work, that a
man with ordinary intellect knew did
not exist? How in the face of these
charges can you remain silent and de-
mand further charges before you re-
ply to them? With your indulgence
l will PROFOUND few more questions
that suggest themselves to my mind.
Is it not fact that you did offer to
sell the land to those parties at the
time md for the price they say you
did? Is it not fact that the land you
off red to sell, including the farm, mill,
dwellings and all other improve.
ments was rendered for taxation for
the year 1888 for the sum
of $5l64? l will state that
such is the fact, and l refer you and
the public to the comptroller's Office
for proof.
Considering your relationship to the
owner of the land and in view of the
fact that you as attorney general had
prior to this rendition issued circu-
lar letter to every county attorney in
the state instructing them to examine
the assessment rolls Of their county
and whenever they found property
rendered for taxation below it's cash
value to 60 before the grand jury and
indict for perjury the parties making
the rendition, the inference is ire
sistable that the property in question
was rendered at its full cash valua-
ton. AS further evidence of this
conclusion the same property was rem
dered for taxation in 1889
at the same valuation and this
subsequent to the time that the
parties charge that you made the offer
to sell it for $4,000.
Did you regard Col. Taylor as a
man of gool business capacity? Did
you believe he would purchase $5164
worth of property for $4,000 without
any consideration for $34 1886, differ
ence between price asked by you for
the land and its taxable valuation as
rendered by your father in-law? What
was the consideration to Col. Taylor,
Mr.. Bell or Wilkie, for the difference
between the taxable valuation of the
land and the price asked of them by
you? Were they, or either of them in
your opinion to receive anything ex-
cept the 1864 worth of land, and if
Sc, what was it?
Can you explain for the benefit OF
the public your two positions in refer
ence to the capitol building, as fol
lows:
l. On the 18th day of December,
1887, about eight months prior to Of
fering your land for sale to the capitol
contractors you sent the following let
ter to Col Nat Lewis, sheriff of Bexar
county:
ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE, }
AUSTIN, Tex, December Ii, 1875
Col. Nat Lewis, Sheriff Bexar County.
Dear Sir-Regretfully, official de-
mands preclude the possibility of my
accepting your generous invitation by
telegram to attend the sherIff's con-
vention and banquet at San Antonio
today and tonight.
No doubt that grand body of the
laws chivalrous defenders will have a
glorious, sumptuous season in the
Alamo city as welcome guests of
liberal, generous people. When they
are through with San Antonio tell
your clever guests to call and see the
grandest capitol building on eartE,
and one, too, without crack or Green.
Come with them. Your friend and
obedient servant, j. s. HoGG.
2. In 1888, before the final recep-
ton of the capitol building, and at the
time you were offering the land for
sale to the capitol contractors, you
claimed and loudly asserted before the
capitol board and building commits
sioners that the capitol building was
defective from base to dome.
Now, in conclusion, and in reply to
your demand for anything that reflects
upon your official and personal in.
tegrity, 1 respectfully refer you to the
published interviews of Messrs. Wilkie,
Bell and Taylor in the Houston Post
of June Ia and the Fort Worth Ga
zette of June 16, which thousands OF
people have read, and which charges
you specifically with conduct incon-
sistent with official integrity in this:
l. That you attempted to sell con-
tractors Architect Bell and sub-Con-
tractor Wilkie land, when you, as
member of the capitol board, were
passing upon their work.
2. That you interposed objections
to the work on the capitol building, as
they believed, in order to force them
to buy your land.
3. That your objections to the work