The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-03-17
THE HOGG 6 ROBERTSON FEE.


| Hcge & Robertson. attorneys, for the coll
lection of claim against the Federal
! government, 1t may be well to state:
| The action OF the senate in adopting
resolution declaring that the constitution
does not authorize the contract for this fec
| was expressly based upon section A., ar
ticis 0, OF the constitution, and SO much OF
said section as applies to the question Is
that the legislature shall not grant by APP
rropriation or otherwise any money out
Of the treasury OF the state to any inii-
| vidusl on claim, real or pretended, when
the same shall not have been provided for
by pre-oxisting law"
This conclusion OF the senate is erron-
eouH. 1t will be noted that the claim can
not be paid unless provided for by pre-
existing law" This is not limited to
statutory law as some senators suppose,
but II means that II authority is given the
governor to make the contract and thus
create the claim against the State for
fee. either By constitutional or statutory
| law. It may be paid-otherwise not. This
contract was authorized both by the con-
stitution and the statutes. as Senator Stat
ford showed In his argument Section 10,
article T. of the constitution imposes two
duties upon the governor 1. To cause
the laws to be faithfully executed" and.
2. to conduct all intercourse and bust
ness OF the State with other States and
with the United States"
Under his general duty to execute the
laws the governor was unquestionably au-
thorized to adopt any reasonable means to
execute the laws of the State on the sub
1ect of the boundary line which, in con-
, nection with the laws of the United States.
on the same subject. gave the State the
right to this money. Under his duty to
attend to all business between this State
and the United States he undoubtedly had
the right. for this was purely business
, matter between the two governments, to
ADOPT any fair and reasonably necessary
course to perform that duty.
In this particular case the governor. IN
: stead Of paying the fee out Of the money
. collected. as Coke did in a similar case.
expressly RENTED the question of ammo.
priatins the money for the fee to the legis
{ iature, and it should pass upon the ex-
: pediency OF the appropriations but to deny
the authority of the governor to adopt
such methods of performing these duties
8 as mis- Judgment might dictate would often
prevent their performance altogether.
~
: IN executing the laws and in conduo,.
. ing the business of the State with the
t United States. he is not limited To his own
I, personal acts, but may resort to aid from,
= DINERS. as the history of the State shows.
anu an act OF his which employs an agency
s 70 ssslst MIN is clearly within the pro-
3 VISIONS of the constitution. In the per.
7 iormance OF his duty to collect this money
S tue governor was not required, either nv
= the constitution or any statute. 10 entrus,
Y the matter to the attorney general, either
alone or jointly with special counsel.
t There were only two ways by which the
0 money could be collected-one, by con
sressional appropriation, and the othe,
DIV SUIT IN the supreme court of the United
! states. Everybody understands that II Is
not the duty of the attorney general n
$ attend to the collection of state claims
r De'ore congress, and some who know this
e SICK 10 create the impression that tbo
: contract in this case was for lobhviny ana
y contrary to public policy; but tho to,,o,,.
b GO lioin the supreme court of the United
n IN similar case effectually dis
: poses of that idea.
. as ,nder e ram no doubt that in such cases
" | ,Soe unosr an other circumstances an $50
!, I Lat; express or implied for nt,rei,, 49,
~ incIndas e - IS wand. Within this CATEGORY
tho claim a dttaltn the petition 70 set forth
n suhhseting facts, preparing arammsn,s Ao ~.
con,,,i,,as them orally or in writing to IA a
other services o OF Ike proper authority and
a .nings are intended to reach oniv Az ~ .nese
o " thoso sought to be Influenced TScv r"st
services rendnr ,ni'Pie Of ethics professional
arc no more exceptionabe. lTrsi u ~ ana
8 al wall, 400 '-''ss 70 ClHu.
ine outies OF the attorney general ~
I TINS state are fully defined bv section %
I article T. OF the constitution end tile 10
A chapter o. OF the Revised Statutes. and in
: neither of them or anywhere else in our
i 'a"s is IL made his duty or he given .v-
= tnority to represent the State in sr,ts
A brought by the State in the supreme court
OF the United States. Both the constitu.
! | " ~SN '""s, III reference to his duties
expressly conine him to the State courts
, me governor was therefore authorized. in
the discharge of these constitutional duties
10 employ counsel without reference 10 the
attorney general, as Ross did in the Greer
county case.
inc constitution of 1869 required tho
governor to see that the laws were faith
I fully executed. Under that general provi
sion alone, without another line OF law.
constitutional or statutory. Coke paid Cid
dings $4,000, which was more than 10 per
cent, for collecting a claim due the state,
and yet some people who approve this ac-
ton OF Coke and II ought TO be approved.
for 1t was right. are opposing the contract
in this case. The authority In the present
case is stronger than in the Giddlngs case,
because the present constitution adds to the
duties of governor the requirement that he
shall conduct all business with the United
States, and article 2907 OF the Revised