The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-02-06

III CHAIRMAN dudley 10 tuppant MIN. He
y diBclaiyaed any feeling In the matter and
h was prosecuting his contest simply from
Ia conviction that Chairman Dudley HAD
III acted under misrepresentation OF the
facts. He claimed that his removal 10 San
sAntonio was simply prospective ana
drought about by desire to benefit his
}wife's health. He had never had any IN
tcption Of making San Antonio his perma-
tnant home. In deferrence to the earnest
8reQuest Of Brennan friends he had not
fesigned us 1t seemed to be unanimous
bentiment of the people who had elected
ahilh that he continue to represent them.
Vie had attended one meeting of the COM
&mittee but did not go to the Dallas meet
Ting last May because Of business engage
III ments which interfered with his attend
Ii ance.
3A In answer to question from Chairman
E& Dudley, and the contestee's attorney
h he replied that he had acquired no home
VI In San Antonio and that he and his part
n ner, Mr.. Searcy, had continued 10 come
y back to Brennan and practice and had
maintained business connections there.
y Mr. d. c. Giddings. Jr.. made state
3 ment corroborating Mr.. Garrett ard sain
81 that 1t was at the earnest request OF the
% people OF Lee. Bastrop Burleson ana
N Washington counties that the latter had
81 not resigned.
Messrs. Stone and Fielder replied that 1t
n was their impression that Mr.. Garrett had
Chairman Dudley stated that he hau
II been written to about MIR. Garrctts re-
3 moval as early as last summer but had
81 ceciined to appoint successor until De-
81 cember and that ne would not have APP
pointed him then II he had received no
n tice OF Mr.. CARROTS return.
n Evidence was Introduced TO show that
r in an analogous case. that of ex-Commii-
II teeman Slayton OF the Corpus Christi dis
- trict, a removal from the district had not
# caused vacancy and that CHAIRMAN
s Baker had not attempted TO remove Stay
s ton.
NJ In arguing the case for contestant, Mr..
" searcy said that there was no rule OF
X law or party prescribing that a commit
"a teeman shall reside In his district. Hc
81 cited INSTANCES where congressman, even
sE had not been residents OF their districts,
He also referred to the case OF Hon.
NJ Holmes Cummips, who although repre-
81 senttug Tennessee on the National eHecu-
81 tive COMPUTES had been resident OF
Texas for two years yet he was without
e question allowed to participate In the re-
Il cent meeting ot the National committee.
Mr. Dashiell didn't think any argument
necessary as the mefn0ers Of tho commit
5i rec were verscd Ia The law and right
VI He would put the matter tn the shape OF
" a question and ask what the committee
would have done 10 the chairuan's place
is with thu hgh.e before u which htH
n been before Chairman Dudley. lie ga
moi think the Currnlus case applte4 here
Ne thought that Il would be reelection
on the chairman not % Recognize Felier.
M During the hearing Chairman Dudley
M stated that he had written TO Mr. Garrett
several times. but had received 10 an
e syrsr fnprl him.
lA Mr. Garrett said that he hal received
Z none Of the !etterg
8sN Mr.. Dudley also saif that when TIE
committee rad met AZ Dallas on May r.
~. there beinv I'd quorum present. h. had
a irstructed trs secretary 70 wire anr.n'
I'll member 20 corr. ard cha be had heer
inforrned that Mr Carrot had t4en t@i.-
81 sraphed AZ Hrcaham ara that a rerlg
81 hs6 been reserve! from ih1r, TIA. DO