The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-01-14

sv1t RtCvAVVU 10 t0IU WulC0 WI n1w01< u
tradistineuished from her creditors, va
IN 1873. and Il failed. (2.) Il has besn M
tnvariable custom upon reasons OF cour-
tesy. ~ we'll ~ others, 70 consult tina IT.
tcrney. general before employing special
counsel. II was not my understanding that
ne desired. under the circumstances. ia
s ssxe cnarsc Of this matter, particularly in
view OF his opinion Of the claim, or had
any objection 10 the employment OF ccun-
sci, Aside from this. in my Judgment, he
neither had the time nor was II his duty
TO collect the claim, either by congress
sional appropriation or suit In the court
OF claims. II 10 well known that there was
such press OF official business In his office
At that time, covering. besides the usual
work and litigation, such extraordinary
matters as the trust cases, the railway res
bate cases and the school fund cases. as to
render II utterly impracticable for him
TO have given this important matter the
necessary attention. II will certainly not
he insisted that II is the duty OF the at
torney general to secure congressional ap-
preparations for the payment OF claims due
the State Nor Is II part OF his official
duty to represent tho State In the court
OF claims or other courts OF the United
States. This officer has often represented
the State In tho Federal courts, both In
& this and previous administrations, but
,Su"S. W tue cVhstttution NUT laws ID IL
made his duty.
(Constitutlon, art. Nv, sec. 80 Rev.
Stats. title LII. chap. 81
/ 1t has appeared In such cases, either Tin
der the direction OF the governor or
through custom and the prevailing loose
opinion that the law imposed the duty
upon him. In the celebrated Greer county
case In the supreme court OF the United
States. the attorney general did not orig
inally appear as Is shown by the answer
on file. but the State was for some time
represented wholly by spocial COUNSEL
There was In the present case no DISPOSE
tion to ignore tho attorney general and he
WAS not ignored. He was promptly and
freely consulted, and my understanding of
the result OF the consultation on this point.
as already stated. was that II III my judg-
mcnt 1t was expedient to employ the coun-
sci 1t was satisfactory. or at least was not
Objectionable. 3. Another reason for the
employment was that the claim was con-
tested by tho United States and specInl
services were deemed necessary for sue
cess. II has already been stated, on the
authority OF the assistant secretary Of the
treasury by telegram to me. that the ball
ance was covered into the treasury June
30. 1877, and no part Of II could be drawn
out except by act OF congress- II not only
required an act of congress to withdraw
the money. but tho claim OF the State to
the residue was resisted md had been re-
sisted for forty years. Moro than this.
II was admitted ut the outset of>the con-
troversy hy our senators in congress that
Texas made no claim to the balance. In
December. 1856, in discussing resolu-
tfon introduced by Senator Rusk of Texas
on the subject OF extending the time within
which creditors should present their
claims, Senator BENJAMIN OF Louisiana
said: ITO the rest OF tho fund she has, In
my Judgment. not the shadow of claim
to which Senator Rusk Immediately re-
sponded. NOR is she setting zip any," Az
forwards. and In the course OF the same
debate, Senator Rusk snid ~ think can
safely say that the State of Texas does not
desire this money. She has given II Tor
release Of u debt of s10,07S000.
Texas expects to receive nothing from It.
She has received her share and
released the United States from IT,"
Congressional Globe. I'd Sess., Saith con-
gross. 1913. l43, 144.)
Most of the senators who took part In
this debate declared. as did Senator'S Ben
1amln and Rusk, that Texas had no claim
to the balance and all others present
seemingly concurred In that view, From
this time continuously the claim has
been opposed In congress whenever pre-
sented, and often tho speech Of Senator
Ruak in 1856. was used to defeat 1t. In
January. 1873, the legislature Of Texas,
for the irst time, so far as Ia anown, ex-
presslv asserted right to the Balance
Of the fund. and directed the comptroller
and governor 10 collect 1t. II aly elf,
was made to do 80 II resulted In failure.
In 1874 Governor Coke called the attention
OF the Texas delegation In congress to the
matter. and II is presumed that everything
practicable was done. but 1t WIS inef-
fectual. During the Hayes administration
another effort wns made by our repre-
sentatlves. and while favorable oon-
mittee report was obtained the r,aas ire
failed TO pass the house of representatives. /
My information 10 that other attempts
were made by our congressional deisga-
ton to secure the appropriation o. this
money subsequent to this. bnt all OF them
failed. and aftor 1883, when the Toby
claim was paid. the claim OF the State to
the balance was apparently abandoned II
lay dormant and unnoticed until revived
az set forth In this communication, and
though finally paid H. WAS st,snuouBly as
sailed according to my information. IN the
committees OF both houses. , mere can be
no question. therefore, that from The be- /
ginning the claim OF the State has been
vigorously attacked and It Is certainly
worthy OF consideration. MS lniiceting tho
cxpcdiency and necessity OF employing
counsel, that II WAS uniformly defeated un-
til this was done.
II will be seen from the contract that the
for collecting the money Is ~
per cent of the amount collected. subject to
legislative appropriation, and in my judg- |
mcnt 1t is fair and reasonable. Authority |
to enter into contract of this character Is |
found In the requirement Of the Constitu-
ton that tho governor shall cause the laws
10 be faithfully executed, and In the act OF
the legislature approved April A, 1857, now
article 2907, Revised Statutes.
II was upon this authority that counsel
we're employed In the Greer county case In
1890. and the railroad commission cases
In 1882. Having confidence In the judg- |
ment and sense OF riabt of that body. tho
clause in tho contract providing that the
ice should be subject to appropriation by
The legislature was inserted TO avoid mis-
because OF the magnitude
Of the transaction and a willingness and
iesire to submit 1t TO the approval OF The
people through their representatives. The
Zee is believed to be lust for these among
other reasons: "a II Is the usual and GUS
Lomary fee for the collection OF money, ~ |
Inc claim was practically revived by the
,oungel who were employed. 80 they were
10 pay all OF their expenses. a. the claim
having been defeated for years the hazard
was considerable and the probability OF
success not particularly inviting, and (5) |
besides the time and labor involved In
legitimate presentation OF the matter to
congress. counsel obligated themselves In
The event OF failure there to proceed judi
90 4 "a