The Texas Republican. [volume] (Marshall, Tex.) 1849-1869, 1854-11-18
nc DEPoSIT!

relation TO the Deposit OF the $500 0o Re
qui,ed by the terms OF the Ie1ss charter
10 which the attention OF the reader 10 'nvi'
ted. Thee were received here on Satur-
day night last. and - additional Information"
was expected before our paper went 10
press, we postponed consideration OF the
ausstions involved. with the hope Of hss'ne
the whole matter before US. Friday morn
ing has At length arrived. and nothing more
h,s come TO hand. We are now forced to
writ. hastily. and wi,hou, full knowledge
OF existing facts.
There is M sppareot inconsistency In
the position oil the Times. which is exp'"'
nations, in our opinion. fail 10 supply. and
a want Of cl.srnss. IN its late editorials.
which leaves much foo,, for conjecture.
1, is evident, however. that n collision
hs. arisen between the Governor and State
Treasurer; first, az To which Is the proper
officer to decide upon the efficiency OF the
deposit, aud s~condy, rs to the deposit
itself. The editor OF the Times seems to
think that the Governor has surrendered
the frs, position. in his letter to the Treas
urer on the 2ud inst, But this, it Will be
seen. il mere guess work We are yet to
learn how lar the opposition OF the Cover
nor extends whether he merely wishes to
diy..t himself Of the responsibility OF the
Transaction, or looking upon II ~ an act OF
bad faith, intends to use his endessors to
delest the contract
a. to which officer has the right to Judge
of the sulciency of the deposit. i, might
seem premature, and perhaps arrogant in
u. to discuss at this time. The Governor
and Treasurer are no doubt ably sustained
by eminent juf'sts In their respective posi-
tons. We should dislike, under these
circumstances, TO hazard sny opinion from
which we could no, recede, without q
charge Of Inconsistency. That portion o
the act which refers to the deposit, does not
say who shall Judge Of lie sati'cency' but
It defines WIN, the depos, shall be. i,
mus, he made in "gold or silver, or eviden
ces oil Texas State debt, OF other good par
stock" Can the stocks OF any Incorporated
compsn, b. considered good" within tn,
meaning Of the law! The Pacific Railroad
&C, contempla,cs ~ forfeiture Of the $500, 900
in case IT,. frs, fit, miles OF the road are uo
constructed in eighteen mouths. Section
~, OF the General Provisions OF the Con
sii,u,ipn. says tina, 1.-The State shall not be
par, owner of the stock or property belong
ing To any corporation" Would the State
b. pr.rluded by this clause of the const'tu
ton. from awaiting itself of forfeiture, il
case the law is no, complied WITH
The decision ns 10 the suiliciency OF
insuilcieucy Of the deposit in this case
involves til. determination oi n constitutions
question; the party deciding, has to deter
mine the character Of the stock the lega
force of the certificates by winch il is
sustained. &c. Are these not -A-o",'sc
functions incompatible with the office oi
Treasurer, an officer whom we have ever
regarded ~ the mere recipient Of the public
money, The whole of the Pacific Rs'lfond
act. from beginning to end, conveys the idea
that Their. are to be but two contracting
PARTIES the Governor and the Company,
~ view Of this fact, would the former be
justified in affirming the contract. when !,
WAS evident to him that the requirement OF
the law had been evaded'
The question involved after all, is this
Does the deposit I'LL the requirements OF the
lnwt II SO, the company can defy all op
position. u it is not good one, even
though it be received by the State, the pub
lie will have no confidence IN II, nor the
company that makes it. II the opposition
OF III. Governor is to the validity Of the
deposit, and he sus,ains bio position, the
moral .Tec, Of the deposit viii be lost, and
the company will fad i,seli without means
to build the road. aud FOR the reason that
its integrity has been compromised.
Governor pease occupies this position ;
II his grounds Of opposition TO the depos,
shall prove correct he will he sus,a Ihed.
On the contrary. if it is merely determi-
nation 10 abuse the confidence placed in
him, aud to endeavor to detca, u great pub.
lie enterprizs, he will have ruined himself
for Hli time. We do not believe him capable
Of the latter
II is certainly singular that the reception
Of III. deposit should have been opposed, il
ii is rs good Ms II is represented by the
Times, aud is sustained by such evidences
NJ ARE mentioned in its editorial. v sssrs
Walker and King have really deposited
stock worth $500. 600, is i, REASONABLE,
to infer thu, the company with which the,
are connected, will suffer it to be forfeited
without a struggled We should go ever
further than this, and suppose that III,
former he'd satisfied themselves fully Of III,
ability Of the company TO build the frs
fihy miles Of road. We hope, therefore
that the ststemen.s Of the Times may b.
verified. and that the next news from Austir