The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-03-21
The Post Bureau,

Austin, Texas. March 20.
HERE WAS NO BUSINESS transacted in
h he house today beyond what was done IN
|commtetee. adjournment having been
had both in the morning and in the af-
ternoon out of the respect to the mem
bry of Hon. S. p Evans, the deceased
member from Grayson. The senate,
however, held session this afternoon
kand passed its appropriation bill with tue
Hull amount asked for by the railroad
Hommission replaced therein, after which
Aeyeral hours were spent In discussing
y bill which proposed the introduction
INTO this state of the parole system of
burning convicts out OF the penitentiary
bn probation. The bill was ordered en-
krossed the other day without much at
Hention having been paid to it, but this
fvening when confronted with it OH final
Passage a number of senators all at once
woke up to what the enactment of such
ID measure meant and fought it to
ktandstill, and it's friends. although in
3hc majority, were for the time being
NEW TURN WAS GIVEN the Hogg fee
controversy in the senate today by MIR.
"a tlee. who introduced bill appropriat-
'3ng $4,000 to be used by the governor
IN paying for services heretofore rem
'dered the State at the instance of the
3fovernor under the employment which
May have been authorized by the con-
III tuition or laws of Texas. In reply to
~ question put for the purpose of ascer-
mining what may be the drift of said bill,
fhe gentleman from Webb said that he
'3d not consider that every doubt had
4een removed as to the authority of the
tovernor to employ an agent to render
|1uch service as that for which Hogg &
Robertson had been promised a fee by
Il Governor Culberson and that he SIM
|6ly wanted to have the matter settled in
VI regular manner. Should the bill pass,
Movernor Sayers can, says Mr.. Atlee, sub
kthit 1T to the attorney general If the
Yeast question arises in his mind as to
4ho legality of the appropriation and Sc
sfure from that official an opinion based
bpon such authorities as may bear upon
III. Mr. Atlee stated further that while
e had voted for the Odell- Hanger reso-
Rition he had done so simply because
here was a doubt as to the legality of
be Hogg & Robertson contract and be-
buse he thought the State was entitled
8 the benefit of said doubt; but that he
i'd not take it that the adoption of said
esolution had settled said doubt beyond
hlrther controversy.
Is BILL authorizing the Missouri, Kan
hs and Texas Railway company of Texas
~ absorb the Sherman, Shreveport and
Bputhern was returned to the senate to-
s3ay without the go5ernors approval. The
III essage accompanying it was short and
~ the point and indicates-as was an
xNclpated in these dispatches last week
mat his excellency is OF the opinion that
LING Stayton decision in the East Line
md Red river railroad case Is as good
III today az it was when handed down.
[fhe most significant reference male in
id message is to the fact that although
s|{te act of 1891, under which the Missouri,
kansas and Texas of Texas was permit
I'D to consolidate the different roads
S ow embraced in its system. contained a
becific declaration that the East Line
5nd Red River was neither parallel nor
bmpeting to any of said roads. it was
ot included in the consolidation affected