Tri-Weekly State Times. (Austin, Tex.), Vol. 1, No. 35, Ed. 1 Thursday, February 2, 1854 Page: 1 of 4
four pages : ill. ; page 19 x 14 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
TRI-WEEKLY STATE TIMES.
VOL. 1.
AUSTIN, TEXAS, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1854.
NO 35.
FIFTH LEGISLATURE.
Debates in the senate
J. T. FL1WT, Reporter.
Saturday, Jan. 7, 1854.
The bill to be entitled "An act to en-
courage the construction of railroads by
a loan of the school fund," being upon its
second reading, the vote was taken upon
the substitute which had been offered, and
it was rejected.
The question then was upon the adop-
tion of the amendment offered by the se-
nator from Rusk (Mr. Gage.) It pro-
vided that not more than one-half of the
money to be loaned by the bill, should be
loaned for the benefit of roads in either
congressional district.
Mr. GAGE—Mr. President: I offered
that amendment because some roads which
have been chartered cannot be commenced
yet, for several years. We are so situ-
ated in some places in Eastern Texas,
that we cannot commence the construc-
tion of our roads until some other roads
are built, as it would be too expensive for
us to haiil our iron, until we have better
facilities. If there is not some restric-
tions in the bill, those roads which run
out from the Gulf will have obtained all
the money, before we are in a situation to
progress with our works. It has been in-
timated that the amendment is sectional;
but I think without justice, as quite as
many live in the eastern part of the State
as in the West. -n
Mr. BRYAN—Mr. President: I hope
that the amendment will not be adopted.
I would regret to see the action of this
Legislature give countenance to the prin-
ciple contained in that amendment. It
draws the line between the east and the
west, which seems to be the disposition of
some too distinctly to mark. It may cre-
ate a feeling which, if fostered, may lead
to consequences anything but pleasarft.
I hope this body will show a disposition
to reject the amendment and the dispo-
sition that gave it birth. Texas is now
a unity: I trust she ever will be, both in
feeling and interest. May we never Le-
gislate into existence a feeling of diversity
of interest between the East and the West.
No senator wishes to see such a feeling
cherished here; yet if this amendment is
engrafted upon the bill, I know that it
will create much feeling—a feeling which
we may yet have cause to regret. If we
commence making such distinctions as
that amendment makes, no one can tell
where it will end, or what the result may
be.
I presented a substitute quite different
in its features from the original bill; which
I had hoped would meet the views of a
majority of this body, after some amend-
ments, if not as presented.
Now the original bill is before us; upon
which I hope, at the proper time, such
amendments may be engrafted, as are
necessary to the accomplishment of the
objects set forth in it, and the preserva-
tion of the school fund: but if the prin-
ciple contained in the amendment offered
by senator Gage is to be entertained by
this Senate, then a different matter will
call for my action and my vote. I hope
no such amendment will be attached to
this bill.
Mr. GAGE—Mr. President: *It is ve-
ry easy for a man who does not wish to
go for a measure, to find some excuse for
opposing it. It is nothing more than
what I expected to hear said of that
amendment from some upon this floor.—
We do not ask it from any sectional feel-
ings or motives; but merely as a matter
of justice, and for the protection of our
interests. If the gentleman from Brazo-
ria (Mr. Bryan) goes against this amend-
ment, I shall set him down as against the
loan bill.
Mr. BRYAN—Mr. President: I know
not how that senator, or any other, can
divine my thoughts before they are ut-
tered. I know not how that gentleman
(Mr. Gage) can say that he is divested of
sectional feeling?, when it was he that in-
troduced the Pacific road bill; the bene-
fits of which road, if constructed, will be
entirely sectional until the branch roads
are built. It is strange that any man as
sectional in his views as he (Mr Gage) is,
should come here and charge others with
being sectional. He sc*s me down as
against the loan bill: and why ? Because
I opposed an amendment which is entirely
sectional in its character. Now, he has
no reason, nor has any other senator, to
say that I am opposed to it: under differ-
ent circumstances, I should have been.
Measures have been adopted since the
meeting of this Legslature, which have
placed me in a different position to the
one I should have occupied in reference
to the loan bill. I now make a choice of
evils. I have acted in good faith. It is
not my policy, principle, or character,
ever to act otherwise; and they who
know me as a man and as a legislator,
know what faith to attach to my declara-
tions. It is not my wont to trick or
trade in legislation; and the insinuation
of the senator savors more of his antece-
dents than mine. If the loan bill is pro-
perly guarded and constructed, I will
vote for it; but I will not vote for the
bill as it now stands before the Senate,
or for the sectional amendment of the
senator.
Mr. JOWERS—Mr. President: I am
in favor of the amendment, if I under-
stand it correctly. [Mr. Jowers called
for its reading.]
I cannot see, sir, why it is that any
senator should object to that amendment.
It provides that simple justicc shall be
done all portions of the State. . I do not
see why any senator should rise in his
place here, and charge the gentleman
who offered that amendment with being
sectional in his feelings. The gentleman
(Mr. Gage) that introduced it, is from the
eastern congressional district: the gen-
tleman (Mr. Bryan) who has spoken in
opposition to it, from the western con-
gressioral district; and he knows that the
West will have the advantage in obtain-
ing the money to be loaned by the bill, if
there should be no restrictions in it, simi-
lar to the one contained in this amend-
ment. As far as it belongs to the Easlíf
I care not. The question with me is,(
Does it deal fairly with all portions of the
State ? It looks rather suspicious to me,
that «. man from the West is a little sec-
tional in his feelings, when he can rise in
his place and charge this amendment with
being sectional; having the fact in view,
that there are roads in the West now un-
der construction, and in a state of ad-
vancement far ahead of those in the East;
knowing that they would not only be the
first to profit from the land, but would
also be likely to get the most of the mo-
ney. There is a road already in the
West, twenty miles of which has been
constructed; and many others are ex-
pected to be constructed much in advance
of the eastern roads, on account of the
facilities which they have for getting iron.
The object of the amendment is to pre-
vent the West from drawing all the mo-
ney out out of the treasury, before the
East is in a situation to take advantage of
it. I support the amendment—not as an
eastern measure, but as one which deals
out justice to all alike. Let me say to
the friends of the measure, that we are
delicately situated. If that amendment
is not adopted, I fear that we shall lose
the vote of the senator from Rusk; but
if it should be adopted, I am not quite as
sure that we shall lose the support of the
senator from Brazoria. We need all the
votes that we can get. Believing that
the amendment will but do simple justice,
without prejudicing the rights of the
West, I am in favor of its adoption.
Mr. HART—Mr. President: I am op-
posed to this amendment, and like the
senator from Brazoria, would deprecate
this feeling, which would array the East
against the West. I do not think the
r mendment necessary for the protection
of the East. It will be recollected, by the
reading of the bill, that neither of the
congressional districts can get much ad-
vantage, as no one road is to receive more
than $500,000 of the money to be loaned.
It is not likely that more than two or
tiiree roads will be constructed in the
¡ West for some time, or before roads will
I be constructed in the East; and, besides,
I one of rhe principle roads of the West is
| to run into the eastern portion of the
State. mi vvuv. — ————— — - q— — —
I [After some remarks by Messrs. Sub- in their construction. The opponents of
lett and Paschal, Mr. Jowers offered a the loaning policy, have attempted time
substitute to the original bill and amend-! and a sain, to fortify themselves under
! ment. Mr. Hart claimed that the sub-
stitute just offered «lid not differ material-
ly from the one which had been rejected,
and therefore that, it. wnnhl t<nt ho ntitm*
tained by the Senate. Senators Jowers
and Bryan explained the difference brief-
ty-]
The question then was, upon the adop-
tion of the substitute offered by Mr. Jow-
ers.
Mr. PASCHAL—Mr. President: I
was not aware that the vote had been
taken upon the first substitute, rejecting
it. Had I been here, I should have vo-
ted for it. I did not vote at all upon it;
but if allowed, will move a reconsidera-
tion : if I am not allowed to do so, I hope
some gentleman will, who voted in the
majority.
Mr. JOWERS: If any one will move
a reconsideration of the vote rejecting the
substitute, I will withdraw mine.
[Mr. HILL here made a few remarks
not audible to the reporter.]
Mr. LOTT: I voted against the sub-
stitute, and will make a motion to re-oon-
sider the vote rejecting it, if Mr. Jowers
will withdraw the substitute which he has
offered.
[Mr. Jowers withdrew his institute,
and Mr. Lott made the motion to re-con-
sider. The ayes and noes being called,
the Senate refused to re-consider.]
Mr. JOWERS—Mr. President: Í of-
fer a substitute to the original bill and
amendments again—
Mr. HOLLAND—Mr. President:—
With the view of settling this matter
finally and forever, I move an indefinite
postponement of the bill and amendment.
Mr. JOWERS—Mr. President: I
am really soiry that the Senator from
Panola (Mr. Holland) has made the no-
tion that he has. We have not yet got
the bill in the shape that we would wish
to have it. If his motion does not pre-
vail then we can amend it; and it cer-
tainly needs amendment. If the Sen-
ate will give us an opportunity to place
it in the best shape that we can; we will
Jj>e ready for a fair vote, and then if it is
Tost we will not hiurmur.
I feel a deep interest in a bill of this
kind, and would like to see the enemies
of it give us a fair chance. When I was
a candidate, I had the bill before me
which passed the House last winter. I
made twenty-two speeches upon the
stump, and at every one read that bill,
and commented upon it to the people.
I advocated the policy contained in it,
because I thought it would advance the
interest of the State. I believe that the
people feel an interest in the passage of
the bill before us, and hope the Senate
will allow us to so amend it, that the
friends of it can at least unite upon it.
If gentlemen are actuated by a spirit of
liberality, they cannot certainly wish to
prevent us from placing the bill in its
best possible shape before the vote is ta-
ken.
Mr. SUBLETT—Mr. President: I
regret that I should be called upon so
suddenly and so unexpectedly, to give
my views upon the propriety of adopting
the loaning policy. But in as much as
the motion has been made to indefinitely
postpone the bill, which if sustained puts
an end to the matter—I cannot remain
silent. It seems to me that this motion
is illiberal in its character.
The opponents of the bill ought at
least to permit its friends to get it in the
best possible shape. If they would do
this, much needless discussion would be
cut off. I therefore call upon the Hon-
orable Senator from Panola in a spirit of
kindness to withdraw his motion.
Mr. HOLLAND—I acknowledge that
my object is to defeat the bill, and I
therefore insist upon the motion.
Mr. SUBLETT—Then Mr. Presi-
dent, there is no alternative hut to meet
the question. I regard the loan bill as
one of more importance to the southern
and western portion of our State than
any that has been acted upon during the
present session of the legislature. The
loaning policy may not have been discuss-
ed before the people in any portion of the
State. I think it likely that it was not; but
wherever the want of railroads has been
felt, the people have canvassed this and
all other questions, calculated to give aid
t\r\n
the wings of the constitution. At
time sir, before the merits of the loaning
policy had been discussed before the
people, by its friends and advocates—
conventions were spoken of—the people
were denouncing their constitution on
account of the supposed restrictions it
contained; they were prepared to call a
convention to remove the imaginary bar-
riers which prevented wholesome legisla-
tion upon the subject of internal improve-
ment. But sir, when the subject was
fairly presented before them, and a def-
inite plan suggested—the plan which is
laid down in the bill before the Senate,
they could no longer be humbugged
about constitutional barriers. But as
there are some who are still sticking
about the constitutionality of this bill,
I propose, (not with the expectation of
convincing them; but that my own posi-
tion may be understood,) to show that the
bill does not conflict with the constitution.
The bill simply proposes to invest the
school fund, by loaning it to railroad
companies. Now sir, it is contended
that if this money is loaned to railroad
companies, that it will amount in sub-
stance to an appropriation for internal
improvements, and that therefore the bill
must be passed by a two-third vote; and it
is also contended that if we loan it for a
longer time than two years, we violate
the constitution. These are the first
propositions which I shall attempt to an-
swer. It is admitted that in order to
make an appropriation for the purposes
of internal improvement the constitution
requires a vote of two-thirds of both
Houses of the legislature. No one has
ever doubted, or denied the fact. But
that a loan of money, that has already
been appropriated and set apart for the
purpose of creating and maintaining a
system of common schools, should be
construed into an appropriation for in-
ternal improvements, is certainly the
most farfetched idea that I have ever
heard advanced. The money which has
been appropriated for common schools
purposes, in order to answer the ends for
which the appropriation was made must
necessarily be loand or invested in some
way. It is only the interest that can be
used; the principal is not to be touched,
it is to remain a perpetual fund, and
whatever increase it may receive from
interest or otherwise may be used for
common school purposes. We propose
to loan this money to railroad companies
at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, but
not until after they shall have completed
and put in running order, thirty miles of
road and giving the State a preference
lien upon the road thus completed as se-
curity for its payment. The great error
into which those have fallen who insist
that this is an appropriation for internal
improvements, is this;—they do not draw
the distinction between a loan and ap-
propriation. The term loan I appre-
hend is not to be found in the constitu-
tion. And the word appropriation in
the sense in which it is used in that in-
strument carries with it the idea of a fi-
nal disposition of the public money ei-
ther in liquidation of the liabilities of
State, or as a gift or donation for some
purpose. It cannot be construed to in-
clude a loan. Hence I have always con-
tended that it was perfectly competent
for the legislature to make a direct loan
to railroad companies by a bare majority
vote. There is no proposition any clear-
er to my mind. We would not give them
the money, we would only let them have
the use of it, and a loan thus made, could
not be considered as having been made
for the benefit of railroad companies,
but for the benefit of the State. When
the miser loans his money at usurious in-
terest, he does it not for the benefit of
the borrower, but for himself. And
there is just as much difference between
an appropropriation, and a loan, as there
is between and absolute gift and a loan.
That provision in the constitution
which declares that no appropriation
shall be made for a longer term than two
years, unless for educational purposes
fuily sustains my position. This clause
was simply intended to prohibit the leg-
islature from taking up^n itself the dis-
charge of duties which would more prop-
erly devolve upon the next succeeding
legislature, which would of necessity un-
der the constitution convene in two years.
And it evidently refers to that class of
appropriations which are made to carry
on the wheels of Government, it is inten-
ded for nothing else, and can mean r.wh-
ing else. If they had intended to say
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View one place within this issue that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Ford, John S. Tri-Weekly State Times. (Austin, Tex.), Vol. 1, No. 35, Ed. 1 Thursday, February 2, 1854, newspaper, February 2, 1854; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth181738/m1/1/?q=Lamar+University: accessed June 2, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History.