The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-04-26

the state a sworn and salaried Office
| viz, David Crockett who is the nigh
: Waterman, whose duty 1t is to re
main at and in the office all of tn
, time after once hours. Responder
, SAYS he had the legal right to give hi
permission to n. s. Smidt and w. w
Williams to remain in the lease de
partment and watchmaD's rooms o
the office on several occasions afte
office hours, said Williams was copy
ing field notes for some of the recently
organized counties of the state, which
said counties were anxious to get tn,
field notes as soon as possible, other
wise land sales and other business il
regard to the land therein would Of
might have been seriously affected
Said Smidt was copying leases il
order to find out when they expired
especially those adjoining the land OF
j. s. Dougherty, from whom he was
working and the office hours did moi
not afford him the time to get them
out as soon as he desired.
Respondent knowing that they
were honorable gentlemen and that
they desired the information for a
lawful purpose he decided to permit
both of these gentlemen to remain in
room and do their work under the
surveillance of the night Waterman.
1t is not true that they had any &C.
cess whatever to the files of the office,
papers or other archives thereof. No
injury resulted or could reasonably
have resulted therefrom. He says
that under no circumstances would he
have permitted them, or anyone else
to remaie in the office only in case
they were under strict surveillance OF
sworn officer of the office. AS to
said Warren he knew nothing except
that said Smidt asked him to allow
| Warren to assist in proof reading his
work to which respondent consented,
but this was to be during Office hours,
and he has no recollection of consent
ing to allow him to remain there after
office hours. The positive instruc-
tioDs of respondent was given to the
Waterman not to allow any one in the
Office at said hours without respond
ent's consent. Respondent very re.
specially, but most emphatically
denies the charges that the
above named parties had or were per-
mitted "to full and unrestricted &C.
cess to the paper, files and other ar
chives of the said Office" they all be-
ing in other rooms and compartments
of the office locked up, and even the
night Waterman did not know the
combination and had no access, and
could not have any access whatever to
them.
In reply.to the sections of said ar
ticles regarding the lease contracts of
Messrs. Funk and Schauer, in Tom
Green county, respondent AYERS the
following, to wit: That prior to Sep
tenn Der, 1891, he was we'll aware of
conflicting interests between said
Funk and said Schauer, but did not
comprehend fully the merits of the
case till September, 1891, when he re.
ceived from Messrs. Schauer Bros. a
plot showing the position of land they
owned and leased from the state on
the ground, and also the position of
the five sections leased by said Funk,
accompanied by the affidavits of said
Schauer, which will be at the proper
time exhibited to your honorable body
if found necessary. Long before said
Funk's lease expired he and said
Schauer Bros. both made application
to have said five sections, as shown by
the sketch Schauer Bros. had en-
closed in a square, about forty Sec
tions, fourteen of which belonged to
the school fund; that the enclosure
was good and substantial fence; that
they owned part of the balance OF
co at han ~ h.,
to respondent; that they had made
permanent and valuable improve
ments on the same and actually lived
and resided and made their homes on
he land.
They have two valuable dwelling
houses on different sections Of said
land, have dug wells and erected
valuable and costly wind mills on six
different sections; that said lands are
all grazing lands and no water except
thar furnished by said Schauer's
wells; that MIR. Funk did not live on
the land and had made no kind OF
improvements ION the same whatever
and the five sections formerly leased
to him lie in different parts of said
large tract 81 land, 80 that it il
poo5lDlO W 0uClUS0 Uut
Schauer lands without also
enclosing the sections desired
by said Funk. That responder is in
formed and believes that when hi
leased tina land to Schauer, said Funk
was large stock owner and turned
large herds of cattle into the Schauel
pasture and got the benefit of the
water and other conveniences prepar
ed at great expense by said Schauel
without contributing anything.
That these matters and conflicting
interests were submitted to respon
dent on sworn statement of sale
Schauer Bros, on one side and the
open statement Oh the other by sale
Funk ana respondent undertook tt
adjust these equities between sale
parties just as he had done in many
other similar cases and it was his duty
to do.
He wrote to said Funk that b,
would give him thirty days in which
to be heard and requested him to ap
pear and meet the sworn statement
of said Schauer or he would aware
the lease of said land. to Schauer
The time passed and nothing wa
heard from said Funk till after tn
expiration of the time the lands wer
awarded to SchauerS: