The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-07-02
GOVERNOR CULBERSON SPEAKS
ABOUT THAT RETENTION
FEE
THAT WAS Paid H0GG AND ROBERTSON
In the Prize Fight Cases-The Governor
Says That no Secret Was Made of
the Matter Notwithstanding AS
sertions to the Contrary.

The following letter of Governor Cul-
berson's, with reference to the retention
fee paid Hogg 4 Robertson in the prize
fight cases was given the press yester-
day, and is fully explanatory:
Austin, Texas, June 30, 1896.
Felix d. Robertson, Esq, Waco, Texas:
Dear Sir-Your recent favor in refer
ence to the employment of special coun-
sci to assist the attorney general in the
prize fight litigation was duly received.
The firm of Hogg 4 Robertson of Aus
tin was employed in that capacity and
paid the sum of $500.
Presenting that you also desire to
know why they were employed, will
state the reason. The attorney general
gave it as his opinion that professional
prize fighting was against the law of
the state, upon which proclamation
was issued warning parties against its
violation. Impelled by my oath of of
flee and practically unanimous demand
of the people of the state it was my pur-
pose to execute this law at whatever
cost. Soon afterwards Judge Hurt of
the court of civil appeals, in Il habeas
corpus case in which the state was de-
MED an appeal, decided that prize fight
ing was not illegal and the question was
thus left in doubt with some, in view
of those two opinions. Parties claiming
to speak for the projectors of the prize
fight carnival at Dallas called to see me
and were informed that the opinion of
the attorney general would be accepted
unless Il contrary conclusion was an
nounced either by the supreme court or
the court of criminal appeals, and they
stated that appropriate proceedings
would be instituted in the supreme court
or possibly case taken to a full bench
in the court of criminal appeals. In the
meantime two cases were filed in the SUI
preme court by other parties to compel
the comptroller to issue licenses for prize
fights. thus squarely presenting the
question.
Many eminent counsel were employed
by private parties in the Dallas case
and in the other two cases mentioned.
The legislature was called in special
session to remove all doubt on the sub
iect and avoid a conflict of authority.
The Dallas parties were resisting an en-
Urgency clause in the law in order that
the proposed carnival would take place
and threats were made before and after
the special session of appealing to the
federal courts on the ground that an act
passed would violate the constitution of
the United States by interfering with So
called vested rights. 1t was also con
Sidered by the authorities that if no law
were passed by the legislature to meet
the situation and no proceedings were
had by private parties in one of the
courts of last resort. the state would
take such steps as might be deemed legal
and advisable to obtain decision of the
question by one of these courts. In
view of the complicated condition of the
question. the intense interest manifested
by the public, the array of opposing
counsel. the constitutional issues sought
to be injected. and my purpose to leave
nothing undone to protect the state from
the contemplated project. these gentle
men were employed and the attorney
general as we'll as myself believing the
fee reasonable one. they were paid the
sum named When the gravity of the
question involved. the work actually
done in the two cases filed and the eX-
animation and preparation on others
threatened and contemplated, and the
fact that they were engaged to assist the
attorney general in all the various
phases which | have mentioned, are
considered, the fee is undoubtedly Il
reasonable one. and so compares with
fees paid special counsel by my prede-
cessors. This is further indicated by the
fact which L learned afterwards, that
this firm was offered $4,000 by the other
parties. Prompted by political malice. it
is sought to make it appear that there
has been an attempt to conceal this
matter. The intimation is both false and
malicious The employment was pub
licly announced at the time. the gentle
men took part in the presentation of the
cases before the supreme court, and in
my speech at Greenville on April 81.
which has been thoroughly distributed
throughout the state. the amount paid
them is stated. 1 have no hesitation in
adding that were it deemed necessary
should have used all the money at my
command to prevent this contemplated
disgrace to the state. Very respectfully,
G.. A. CULBERSON.