The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-06-30
A CLEAR CUT STATEMENT.
uoSernor Culberson Explains the
hoag Retainer Fee.
II HAS NEVER BEEN CONCEALED.
"" 'ne c"ntrary tho Governor spoke oi
anu '"suiles His Position Hous.
TO" City Bonds Approved.

~ copy % II letter written by Gn,ctnor
''"'perSon IN reply Ia M inquiry conc, n
ING mat S9ooc lawyers fee paid by tine
Stale III the prize tight cases, which has
supposedly Just been discovered" ana
'toout which so much populist ..pizen"
is beng scattered abroad:
Felix D. Robertson ESQ. Waco. Te,as
Al'sEin, Texas, June 26.-~ncar Sir. Your
recent FAVOR IN reference 10 the employ
ineh' OF SPECIAL counsel to assist the at
'orney general In the przc nigh, litigation
was duty received. The firm Of llogg 4
Robertson OF Austin was employed IN that
capacity and paid the sum of ss5Ou.
Pnslimig that you also desire. to know
why they wera employed, | Will state the
| reason. The attorney general gave II AS
| les opinion that PROFESSIONAL priv nshtins
was Against me law Of file state. upon
Wnirh p'oclam,ion Was is>uod warning
| parties against It's volat.nn Impeilcd los
! my oath OF office amt "A practically unan-
| NOUS demand of the people OF The :, ate
| u was my purpose TO execute This Law al
| whatever cost Soon afierward Judge
| Hunt OF the court al criminal appeals. IN
a haheas crirus case in which the STATE
| was denied an appeal, decided mat prize
| lighting was uoi Illegal and the question
| WAS then left IN doubt with some, IN view
| Of these two opinions. Parties clamin;
to speak tor The projectors Of the pri2r
| tight carnival ri Dallas, called to soc me
| and were Informed that the opinion OF
| he attorney gpnreal would he accepted
| unless a contrary conclusion WAS an
F, nounced either 10y the supreme court or
| the cour, of criminal appeals, aud they
| stated that appropriate proceedings would
| be instituted IN tho supreme court or
| possibly "a <ase taken to a full bench IN
the court of criminal appeals Ia the
! meantime two cases were filed IN the SILT
| preme court hV other parties TO compel
the comptroller 10 issue licenses tor pfiz,
| tights, uhus squarely pres nling the qucs-
zion
Many oniaen' counsel weia omployfl ny
private parties, Ia the rsllaS case aild
IN The ctnet TWO cis.s incn,ioued' The
| legislature Was called in Si'erhl snss.oN
ia remove all doubt on Me subject AMI
avoid conflict Of authority The itai'as
| Parties W re rcsis.t s an en- regency 'laGs,
in iho law In order rnst the nropps~i
I carnival sholld take place ard threats
We're mala before and after the special
session appealing % thr FciFfal courts
ITnited States by interfering with So.
j. was co. fsiriered bg the authorities
thai II ~ law wore uar-ci hY the lesis-
lature 10 meet tn. situatiau and no pro-
ceedings werc had by private par,ic- Ia
nuc of tho courts of last nis'lt. the state
would take spch srps As might ha dnerle'
of the question by az" Of tiles' uNee
courts in Wv of ,he cnmn,icAtnh con-
'iitoD Of Tho qtes''on,. ~ intense f'teFrst
manifested ~ ''ls pnNlic. the array o.
| opl --int, counsel the Constitutional issu
sought 10 ba injected. nHi nay purpose %
leave nothing u.ione to protect the STAGE
from the contaminated project these gen
rietnen We're employed ard the sdoin.Y
fee a reasonable cli' they W." para Inc
sum named
When tn, gravity Of tAr question m
,-olvol the work actually done in iho
iva GAGS filoa and ,ne examination and
nre,nsrfion On ottrrs threatened and con-
leniplafed. and the fact that tey "erf
engaged to ASSIST the attorney general u
all the varioiis phases which have men
,,.,,-., are considered. the trn is uodonla'
| eddy a reasonable one, and 50 compares
with fees paid special couiisei ny my
predecessors This Is further indicd''n y,
the fart viii III lcarrcl atferwlres' llt
this firm was offered SWH hY the "thcf
| parties >,
rrnnptod by poliicil malier T. Is somsni
| 10 mako II .nDaar that thcrc mas 1tHh Az
attenlh 20 conceal This matter me ~
tiniatAon Is both false AND malicious.
The employment was publicly annoNli'4.I
at the tine, the erntlemen TOOK PM y"
| tha nreernfsi'nu Of Tho cause hrior" 'n'
supreme court and In my spoeali al ''iI' ,,
,-jlla an s,,rfl q which has herli NOR
ouphly distributed throughout the saw.
the amount paid them Is stnt"n' HANt
M hesitation in aiding ilihl were ;,
doomed necessary I should naNe useo ~.
,hc money nj my command - preNon'
his rnr tninpated disgrace to tne S'-ti'r
Very respectfully. g. y. u'''''
CHARTERS ISSUED,
Tho following charities were todaN ''p'
in tie nftico of the secretary II stat
rba cuero Power and Irrigation com
many of ctlsro; capital stock S3."p' IN
, cornorators. Alex hamilton v Weldon