The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-10-25


Governor Culber SON believing that tn
regular officers of government are ejectn
10 meet ordinary occasions and beIinv IN.
lhlp 10 be great emergency cop,ilers,
IL wlse to employ counsel from nnon...
: the citizenship to aid the government in ,
Trying time to conclude mootcd uucsflo
unon which ihe officials had fixed Views
5 nut whl'h were being combatted so stub.
holnlv that out Of Difference to those citi.
1ens who differed with them they sou,h,
outside aid. Aud again this assistance was
sourht reasonable IN as much as the qtles-
tlons IN tn" mandamus cases and i'm The
hdboas corpus case were the same. AMI the
attorney general mad hccu unsuccessful I'm
the latter.
The governor therefore employed the law
trm of Hoeg a Robertson, NOT cN-Goyornor
linge at an agreed fee of $4,000. What
for?
Because if Judao Hurt was correct the
only way to prevent the threatened pri1e
night WINS TO convene the legislature and
pats law penalNins prize fights
This would oniail cost OF about 500
II was estimated aud ever anxious to- PFC
N'ni unnecessary expenditure of puhn
in"ney. the governor concluded TO cypcnd
| ~ per cent OF that amount for able couu
sci not only To defend the uandlfnus
! cases. but 70 rowc to a conclusion as to
the exact condition OF The law and 10 ad
/ Nise upon the whole subject of / proven
ton Of rri2e nah, ana Ia devise means
u POSSIBLE, Of avoiding the expenditure OF
VIZ '"'Nt sum
- ",Nn,I ,ohccrn was sued Tor N''-oo'
no one would resard fee of 5000 a. nm
! excessive sum to BAY firm OF able lawyers
w. '"',, ls"'' an ''S'IuH NuoN'l"u ol Va"
and advise If a successful defense could be
made. ma matter whether the attorneys ad
Vlscd fayorablv or uufnyorahly.
WI. NV Pr'N'l'Hr "laSss'0d to rep
i'he'u lne nis' ap'l''"ut Tor wrl %
",""''",'uS H"u Nn"" oi NV own kn"wi
,'t' '""' "hlr was preparing me ciso
,' we 'aN 'o'Me'or saw eN-HoVetnof
't"tN ''liN '"N'''N'' l'h me QueNlnnH pre-
n'i''.u lo' soiu'Ipn IN INC nue. OF ms en-
,'''N 'l''''' anu ID" MN pr'f"i" an eN-
we u'lVl'
"' uo' MOO" "nal inc contluslpn or
.M'H"'s ilogE " lt"h'r'hoI' was or what
my a"NiH','' pu' "IVI 'hti employment
ana hll'F saw 'A Governor liosg en-
-"t'' lu investigation the can Tor spe-
''1i session was ISSUED
WloIr the 'onV'nlne OF the legislature
~ 1u' "l me Zee WAS halh
me IoflS'"lnte convened ana passed the
h''V'' INV ana 'h' ttN collector oi Hays |
county VINO represented ATTACKED the
constitutional l'N OF lhe new law aud whom
the case was neard q lew daFF lnirr by the
supreme oo"'' orHi arEnin'h's were mhde
heiore maj tilhnhal bV the attorney gen
erAl ana Governor HopE for the state and
NV Ar. John W. Parker ana mNhcli for The
A'nl'ahtS'
nc investment OF N-'uu IN an ehort Ia
hNo'u INC c&penu''u'e OF the FS''oop in'ldent
10 'onN"ninR the legislature wac warranted
though the effort vas unsuccessful
rs Wow the matter at the time IN" fee
was contracted the Inanhamus cases prom
lHed III themselves to attain an Importance
luN'IN'hg inc contract ana u IN preparing ,
Tor 'holr 'iial II was concludeh maj me ,
Judgment "ouId OF possibly "ouiu ne IN
favorable to The interests of the state or
""nld be DELAYED ana another course I
%ouid ho wiser thAh the one contemplated t
ms would not luEiliY refusal OF payment E
u the sum agreed upon s
ANA again, u tho ompioYment OF Messis.
ioes Robertson was one OF the means. .
d ne carry stages Of preventive enpr', by {
men IN" s'nppakc OF tne hgh' was sought s
nd lheY rendered service, certainly the v
act mat inc labor hecame unnseful on Il
.'ouh' OF 'hahpo o' he'hod' would fur- o
'Nh no ground Tor refusal to pay the n
um contracted for II
no persons ana papers that are urg-
lg TINS matter against the governor
llsoiy charge mat Messrs Hogg s. Robert
on were not employcd until the passage 7
the prize Fight law and s'ill further false Q,
charge that they rendered no service r,
hateyer
II Is also charged that Ex-Governor Hogy y
Ont 10 Judge Cochran and asked him not II
} dismiss the mandamus case brought by q
i'm that Messrs. llogE & Robertson miphi p'
AXE n show Of service rendered d n
Of know whether cx-Goyornor Uogp ala
Ms or not hut know that II did not ,,.lro 81
~ difference whether Judge Cochran dis. ~
Used his case or not for the case filed hy Nv
g demanded the services OF the counsel ~
nployed and under no circumstances was u,
. ease III "hl'u | was COUNSEL 10 be as WI
isHth' LOT my case was an earnest ono.
9icl was to succeed or fail whether tho mr.
law was passed or not. only by tho Aa