Skip to main content

Who Owns the Library? The New Battle of the Alamo

By
This week the Daughters of the Republic of Texas  (DRT) filed a lawsuit against the General Land Office of Texas. The petition, filed in the 407th Bexar County District Court, alleges that the General Land Office and the State of Texas have illegally claimed ownership of the DRT’s library collection as an unconstitutional  taking of private property. 

The dispute arose after the Texas Legislature, in 2011, turned over responsibility for the “preservation, maintenance, and restoration of the Alamo complex,” (Act of May 30, 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., ch. 1046, § 2, 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 2676) from the Daughters of the Republic of Texas to the state’s General Land Office (GLO). In June 2010, the Office of the Attorney General began an investigation of the DRT’s management of the Alamo. Once the investigation began, public scrutiny and highly publicized structural problems at the Alamo prompted the Texas legislature to act and end the DRT’s stewardship of the Alamo before the investigation was complete.  The law mandated that the General Land Office and the Daughters of the Republic of Texas enter an agreement that would detail the management, operation, and financial support of the Alamo complex. After the legislation transferred stewardship from DRT, the Attorney General issued its report detailing  the organization’s failures as trustees, which provides a lengthy discussion of the problems that the DRT library presents. 

The Daughters of the Republic of Texas Library opened in 1945, and the current library building, located on the grounds of the Alamo complex, and was built with DRT funds and opened in 1950. The Daughters of the Republic of Texas Library is a non-circulating research library of Texas history, with particular emphasis on the republic period and on the Alamo and San Antonio history. The collections include books, newspapers and periodicals, family papers, genealogical records, documents, maps, architectural renderings, clipping files, fine arts, artifacts, and photographs. These items have been donated to the library since it opened with the donations of Dr. William Eager Howard, who provided the nucleus of its collection. The collection has grown to include over 38,000 items either donated or purchased with donated funds. 

According to the 2012 Attorney General’s report, the state believes the DRT Library wrongly asserts ownership over state-owned artifacts and that state funds were improperly used to operate the library. After the General Land Office began its oversight of the Alamo complex, the parties agreed that the collection would be inventoried and the appropriate owner of the items would be determined. In their petition, the Daughters of the Republic of Texas in their petition, argue that the State and the General Land Office used biased methodology to improperly claim ownership of many items in the collection. The DRT is asking the court to enter a declaratory judgment finding that the majority of the items in the collection were intentionally donated to the DRT library, and not the State of Texas. 

The current conflict begs the question of how the Daughters of the Republic of Texas became the custodians of the Alamo complex. The uneasy relationship between the DRT and the State of Texas began at the dawn of the 20th century, and its strange legal history is the subject of tomorrow’s blog. 

Labels:

Comments

  1. JackieMarch 28, 2015 at 6:27 PM

    The Daughters of the Republic of Texas Library was built with a donation from my grandmother, Sallie Ward Beretta, in memory of her husband, John King Beretta. Her intent is obvious in her dedication on December 2, 1950, that was printed on the program: to give funds to the DRT to build a library that the state of Texas had refused to fund. The library to house all the collections donated to the DRT that would be available for perpetuity. She did not envision a day that the government would intervene a la George Orwell's 1984. I think this entire episode could change the face of philanthropy in the United States. I mean, who would give any money to any charitable organization if the government can step in and take it away? Jackie Beretta

    ReplyDelete
  2. JackieMarch 28, 2015 at 6:28 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Amazing, but True, Deportation Story of Carlos Marcello

By
Earlier this week, the University of Houston Law Center was fortunate to have as its guest Professor Daniel Kanstroom of Boston College of Law. An expert in immigration law, he is the Director of the International Human Rights Program, and he both founded and directs the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic. Speaking as the guest of the Houston Journal of International Law’s annual Fall Lecture Series, Professor Kanstroom discussed issues raised in his new book, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora . Professor Michael Olivas introduced Professor Kanstroom to the audience, and mentioned the fascinating tale of Carlos Marcello, which Professor Kanstroom wrote about in his chapter “The Long, Complex, and Futile Deportation Saga of Carlos Marcello,” in Immigration Stories , a collection of narratives about leading immigration law cases. My interest piqued, I read and was amazed by Kanstroom’s description of one of the most interesting figures in American le...
1 comment
Read more

Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda

By Anonymous
“Man’s inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.” –Martin Luther King Jr.   Last week, I had the pleasure of attending  Professor Zachary D. Kaufman ’s presentation on  Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda  hosted by the  Johannesburg Holocaust & Geno cide Ce ntre . Among the many takeaways highlighted by Professor Kaufman and drawn from  Lessons from Rwanda: Post-Genocide Law and Policy   were ten simple yet profound lessons:   Lesson #1: Hate speech is dangerous.   To illustrate the role that hate speech played in the Rwandan genocide, Professor Kaufman discussed multiple forms of  propaganda , such as Kangura, Radio Rwanda, and RTLM “hate radio.”   He concludes that we must have limits, including with respect to social media, and further asserts that social media must do a better jo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Texas Subsequent History Table Ceases Publication

By
This week, Thomson Reuters notified subscribers that publication of the Texas Subsequent History Table will be discontinued and no further updates will be produced, due to “insufficient market interest.” Practitioners have been extracting writ (and since 1997, petition) history from the tables since their initial publication in 1917 as The Complete Texas Writs of Error Table . The tables, later published by West, have been used for nearly a century to determine how the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of an appeal from an intermediate appellate court. The purpose of adding this notation to citations is to indicate the effect of the Texas Supreme Court’s action on the weight of authority of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.  For example, practitioners may prefer to use as authority a case that the Texas Supreme Court has determined is correct both in result and legal principles applied (petition refused), rather than one that simply presents no error that requ...
Post a Comment
Read more