Tri-Weekly State Times. (Austin, Tex.), Vol. 1, No. 28, Ed. 1 Tuesday, January 17, 1854 Page: 4 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:
wrn&r
¿for the purpose of surveying the route?
L If their object was to dispose of that
charter, why did they appoint a man to
superintend the survey from Marshall to
• Tyler ? It would be a strange thing for
the directors to furnish money for a sur
▼ey, and at the same time declare the
charter illegal, and adopt a method to sell
it. No sir ; the gentleman knows very
- well that the directors wish to carry on
the work of constructing the road in good
faith. That they have no desire, nor
j have they had, to sell the charter. It is
•aid that we are opposed to the Pacific
railroad. I deny the assertion. The Pa-
cific railroad is a darling project with the
East; but to none more than the people
of Smith county. I hope the Senate
will act upon this matter in a spirit of
magnanimity and justice, and not be ac-
tuated by any prejudices that may have
arisen from the reading of newspaper
articles, claimed to be the publication of
the proceedings of a meeting held by the
directors of that company. It is hoped
that Senators will recollect that but one
director was present when the resolutions
read to us were said to have been adopt-
ed.
Mr. WREN—Mr. President: I would
ask the friends of the bill a few questions,
an unequivocal answer to which will per-
haps set me right in this matter.
I would ask the Senator from Harrison,
ÍMr. Scott) what he wants of the charter
or the Vicksburg and El Paso road, if
the Pacific road is to be constructed ? I
pause for a reply.
Mr. SCOTT:—Upon the engrossment
of the bill, I will answer that question.
Mr. WREN—I think the rules of this
body governing discussions have already
been transgressed farther than that ques-
tion transgresses them. Now what are
they wanting of this bill, if they are
friendly to the Pacific road, and expect
that it will be constructed ? Why ask us
to revive a charter, whieh it is believed
they have forfeited, and that by a bill
which leaves us so much in the dark that
we do not know really what we are do-
ing, or what acts we are confirming?
Again I would ask the friends of the bill
what they want of the road ?
[The President here called Mr. Wren
to order, and said that he must confine
himself to the discussion of the proposi-
• tion before the Senate.]
[Mr. Wren called for the reading of
the amendment.]
Mr. WREN—I would ask if it is the
object of the bill to enable the company
to complete the road to El Paso, if they
etgit passed?
Mr. SCOTT—I would not be likely
to convince the gentleman, if I should
state the facts, for
"A man convinced against bis will
Is of the same opinion still."
Mr. WREN—Mr. President: If those
gentlemen intended to construct their
road, why did they not come forward
while the bill for the construction of the
Pacific road was under consideration, and
state that they had a charter to El Paso ?
Why did they not claim their rights then,
if they had any, and oppose the passage
of a charter that would conflict with
theirs? None would have been more
willing than myself to protect their
rights. They never spoke of their char-
ter : they never intimated that the legis-
lature was trampling upon their rights;
but as soon as the Pacific bill was passed,
they come forward and ask that the ac-
tion of a certain meeting of organization
held at Tyler shall be confirmed.
^Mr. SCOTT—I have stated once that
this bill has been before the legislature
for a month, and was introduced hrWV>ro
have no rights, I am not now in favor óf
giving them any. After they have thus
slept upon their rights, during the pas-
sage of the Pacific railroad bill, I cannot
vote to give them any privileges that will
enable them to control the passage of the
Pacific railroad through the State. I
never will vote to reinstate that charter,
if forfeited, under these circumstances.
I do not say that that charter is forfeit-
ed, but it is my opinion that it is. If it
is not forfeited, why do they come in and
ask us to confirm acts, while they do not
tell us what they are ? We see some re-
solutions of a meeting, which looks ra-
ther suspicious, of what they intended
to do. They are not able to construct
the road, but we do think that there is
a chance to make a speculation out of it
by selling to the Pacific railroad compa-
ny. Notwithstanding my opposition to
the passage of the Pacific railroad bill,
I hope the Pacific road may be construc-
ted, and all the good which its friends
have anticipated may result from it. I
am opposed to a measure that would bring
an old charter to life, to trammel that
road. If it is not the object of the
friends of that bill to interfere in some
way with the construction of the Pacific
road, then I will believe that my brain
has become so scorched with their elo-
quence that I cannot comprehend their
actions. They have sagacity enough to
see that they might combine with the Pa-
cific road and lay a double track to El
Paso, and thus get-a double donation of
land. If the augmentation of land do-
nated to railroad companies, which has
passed the Senate, passes the House of
Representatives, and they lay down a
double track, they will get thirty-six sec-
tions of land for every mile of the Pa-
cific road constructed, instead of twenty.
That may be the effects of the bill, if
passed, and in view of those facts I can-
not vote to bring the old charter to life,
if forfeited—connot vote to place them in
a position by which they can compel the
Pacific road to come to terms, no matter
how unreasonable.
The people of Texas have given as
much as they are willing to, for the con-
struction of the Pacific road ; but if tne
combination of these two roads should
take place, they will succeed in getting
nearly twice as much as was intended to
be given. My opinion is that the matter
would be arranged by the Vicksburg and
El Paso company inducing the company
which undertakes the construction of the
Pacific road to combine with them in
their operations; and thus make a double
track to El Paso, and get the double do-
nation of land. If some thing of that
kind, or perhaps a sale of privileges to
the Pacific road is not the object of this
bill, I will acknowledge that I am not a
(To be Coniinued in next number.)
Á
'S 3
.JO. WALKER. PROPRIETOR k PUBLISHER
JOHN s. for n. «niTnit
AUSTIN. TUESDAY. JAN'Y 17. 1854.
Democratic County Committees.—
The Democratic Committees for some of
the counties have not been handed in; so
soon as received they will be published.
Legislative.
Friday, Jan. 13, 1854.
Senate.—Messrs. Scott, Lott, Arm-
strong and Taylor presented a protest
against the action of the majority, upon
a .uumu, BI1U n«i,s Iiinuuuueu ueiorc I r
the passage of the Pacific railroad bill, j11 blH supplementary to an act mcorpo-
Every member of the Senate must have ! rating the Galveston, Houston and Hen-
known it. derson Railroad Company." This bill
Mr. MARTIN—For the information ; was introduced on the lltíi inst. l>v Mr.
of the Senate. I would sav that tho in- ir..v.+ i <•' i* .
y . J Hart, and upon a suspension of the rule
troductioD of'the bill and the report of! ^ Up0" 3 ^ "
the agent of the company upon which ] , * '"i" and t"m' aI
the bill was made, in the Land Offiro ' P:lSietl- A bill of the same caption h:
*41 «
wore upon the same day.
Mr WREN—ATv Prfwwlnnt •
r «■ tn
---- Aicsment: i uní
satisfied in my own mind that the friends humuus xo
of this bill have some ulterior objects in bill passed ;
view, from the construction of the ' f. i,j0
Ihey advocated the passage of!
been vetoed by the Governor, and his .
veto made the special order for the lltli.
Previous to any action on the veto, this j
íiTwl tlw veto was laid nn tJ.<> 1
7
w* mu passage oí ¡
the Pacific road, knowing at the time it i
was to run over the very ground of their .
road. They kney thaUhe State of Tex- ' article of the Constitution
as did not want two roads to El Paso, tl.n vMn
along-side of each other. What was
their object then in pursuing coui>e
which they have ? I would not deprive
them of a single right which thevmav be
in possession of. If they have any privi-
leges under their old charter, I am willing
that thov should thorn • Knt If flmv
The reasons urged by the protest arc—
1st. That the 17th section of the 5th
requires that
message of the Governor shall
be acted upon directly, and not evaded.
rd. That it was passed in contraven-
tion of the 20th section of the 3d article
of the Constitution, which requires bills
to be read on three several day, and free
. i
case of great emergency, four-fifths of
the House, in which the bill may be pend-
ing, suspend this rule.
These are the grounds assumed by the
protest. It occurs to us that the pro-
ceeding upon the aforesaid bill was irre-
gular, novel, and unprecedented. It was
doubtless, intended to obviate the objec-
tions of the Governor, and also to forestall
the friends of the bill in passing it by a
constitutional vote, the veto to the con-
trary notwithstanding. The very day
that it passed the Senate, the rule was
suspended in the House, and it passed
that body. It is now in the hands of the
Governor. Suppose it receives his signa-
ture, or becomes a law by limitation, the
veto has not been disposed of, but is sub-
ject to be taken up at any time during
the session. If this should be the case,
and two-thirds of the members of the Le-
gislature should think the veto message
wrong, and vote according to their con-
victions of right, the original bill would
become a law. Thus two acts would be
upon our statute book, with reference to
one and the same railroad, each giving
to said road eight additional sections of
land to the mile.
Notwithstanding we consider the pre-
cedent of passing a bill upon the same
subject matter, while a veto of the Gov-
ernor to one of similar import is laying
upon the table, as unsafe, yet it is certain
the gentlemen hurrying the second bill
through, intended merely to pass an act
free from the objections urged against
the original bill—present it to the con-
sideration of the Governor, and obviate
the necessity of acting upon the veto
message. They conceived it an adop-
tion of the Governor's suggestions, not
intending to pay the least disrespect to
the veto.
The following bills passed the Senate:
A bill to incorporate the Colorado Val-
ley Railroad Company; and, a bill to al-
low John Douglass Brown, a minor, to
transact business as though he were of
full age.
Mr. Weatherford's amendment to the
Loan Bill was laid on the table, by a vote
of 18 yeas to 14 nays.
Mr. Burks offered the following amend-
ment to said bill:
Provided, That no more than one-half
of said sum shall be loaned to roads con-
structed in either one of the Congression-
al Districts of this State: provided, fur-
ther, that at least one-half of the amount
due to the first Congressional District
shall be loaned to roads north of the 32°
of latitude.
Rejected by a vote of IT nays to 14
yeas.
Mr. Holland then offered the follow-
ing amendment:
Provided, That previous to any loan
of money being made by the State under
this act, the Governor shall submit said
proposition to the people at the next reg-
ular election for State and county offi-
cers, and if a majority of the qualified
voters of the State shall vote for the loan,
then such loan may be granted under
the provisions of this act, and not other-
wise.
A motion to lay said amendment on
the table, was lost by the following vote:
Yeas—Messrs. Allen, Bryan, Doane,
Durst, Gage, Hill, Jowers, Lott, Mc-
Dade, Paschal, Scott, Sublett, and Su-
perviele—13.
Nays — Messrs. Armstrong, Burks,
Guinn, Hart. Holland, Kyle, Martin,
McAnelly, Millican, Ne wman, Pedigo,
Potter, Scarborough, Taylor, Weather-
ford, Whitakcr and Wren—17.
On motion of Mr. Millican, Mr. Hol-
land's amendment was amended by strik-
ing out "at the next regular election for
State and county officers, ' and inserting
"1st Monday fn May next."
Mr. Scott offered the following amend-
ment to Mr. Holland's amendment:
1 hat ii there should be more votes
cast l<-r than against the loan, then the
loan shall be made according to the pro-
visions of this act.
On the a doption of this amendment the
j vote stood, 10 to 1(5. The President'
VOtf'll Vvitli tlx ■
ed, was then adopted by a vote of 1^
yeas to 13 nays.
Saturday, Jan. 14, 1854.
Senate.—Mr. Hill introduced "a bill
to provide a summary remedy for sure-
ties," which gives a surety, who has dis-
charged the debt of his principal, under
legal compulsion, the right to a judgment
against the principal and co-sureties, for
their proportionable part of the debt, by
filing a motion therefor, and giving three
days notice thereof.
A special committee, consisting of
Messrs. Lott, Paschal and Armstrong,
were appointed, in accordance with a re-
solution for that purpose, to take into
consideration the propriety of amending
the act relative to the fees of county of-
ficers.
Mr. Gage introduced a joint resolution
authorising the Governor of the State to
submit to a vote of the people a proposi-
tion to loan the School Fund in aid of
the construction of railroavls.
The Senate adjourned, pending a mo-
tion of Mr. Allen's to re-consider the
vote on yesterday, adopting Mr. Hol-
land's amendment to the Loan Bill.
Monday, Jan. 16, 1854.
Senate.—Mr. McDade introduced a
bill to limit the time within which suits
may be brought upon judgments or de-
crees rendered in the courts of any State
of the Union, other than the State of
Texas; which, upon a suspension of the
rule, was read a second time and referred
to the committee on the Judiciary. The
bill requires suits to be brought upon
such judgments or decrees within four
years from the time of their rendition.
The vote on Mr. Allen's motion to He-
consider Mr. Holland's amendment to the
Loan Bill stood as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Allen, Bryan, Doane,
Durst, Edwards, Gage, Hill, Jowers,
Keenan, Lott, McDade, Millican, Pas-
chal, Scott, Suolett, and Superviele—16.
Nays — Messrs. Armstrong, Burks,
Guinn, Hart, Holland, Kyle, Martin,
McAnelly, Newman, Pedigo, Potter,
Scarborough, Taylor, Weatherford, Whi-
taker, and Wren—10.
Whereupon the President voted yea.
The yeas and nays were then taken on
Mr. Holland's amendment, and resulted
thus:
Yeas — Messrs. Armstrong, Burks,
Guinn, Hart, Holland, Kyle, Martin,
McAnelly, Newman, Pedigo, Potter,
Scarborough, Taylor, Whitakcr, Weath-
erford, and Wren—16.
Nays—Messrs. Allen, Bryan, Doane,
Durst, Edwards, Gage, Hill, Jowers,
Keenan, Lott, McDade, Millican, Pas-
chal, Scott, Sublett and Superviele—16.
The President voted nay.
On motion of Mr. Taylor, the main
question was ordered, by a vote of 17
yeas to 15 nays—Senator Durst voting
yea. With this exception, the yeas and
nays were the same as they were on Mr.
i Holland's amendment.
The bill was then refused to be en-
grossed by the following vote:
Yeas—Messrs. Bryan, Doane, Durst,
Gage, Hill, Jowers, Keenan, Lott, Mc-
Dade, Millican, Paschal, Scott, Sublett,
and Superviele—14.
Nays — Messrs. Allen, Armstrong,
Burks, Edward., Guinn, Hart, Holland,
Kyle, Martin, McAnelly, Newman, Pe-
digo, Potter, Scarborough, Taylor, Wea-
therford, Whitaker, and Wren—18.
On motion of Mr. Allen said vote was
reconsidered by a vote of 10 to 16, tho
President voting yea, also Messrs. Ed-
wards and Durst.
Mr. Paschal offered the following
amendment:
Provided, That $700,000 of the school
fund shall be reserved to he loaned in aid
of the construction of railroads, which
do not have a terminus upon the Gulf
coast, the bays thereof, nor upon Buffa-
lo Bayou.
Which, on motion of Mr. Holland, was
amended by striking out $700,000 and
inserting §1-100,000. Said amendment
was adopted by a vote of 18 yeas to 14
nays.
Mr. Bryan moved the previous aues-
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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. 28, Ed. 1 Tuesday, January 17, 1854, newspaper, January 17, 1854; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth181730/m1/4/: accessed July 10, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History.