The Waco daily examiner. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 187?-1888, 1874-02-14
THE PUBLIC wErcnER AGAIN.


Gle in reply TO one of ours on the sub
ject of public weigher. The article
under consideration is, we suppose,
from an independent author, and Of
course an Independent paper is a
good medium through which his ad-
vocscy of his own interests might be
made. The writer says "if the bill
is passed the whole commerce and
productive industry of Texas will be
at great loss" This the writer OF
the article knew to be false state
ment when he made it. 1t has cost
the planters Of Texas fifteen cents to
have the same weighed by the city
weigher of Galveston-on every bale
OF cotton they have ever sent to tina.
good city. Now Mr.. Simpsons bill
limits the price of weighing by the
public weigher, to fifteen cents pei
bale. Where then the terrible loss
to the productive industries CT Texas
that the News prates off so grandly,
and why do the planters OF Texas
call for public weigher to super>
cede the Galveston city Official? ? Sims
ply because they wish to have voice
in the selecti on of their personal rep
resentative and trustee, at the scales,
and TO have him lifted far above every
unwholesome local influence, and to
protect the interests Of the planter
from the dexterity of those very
"experts" whom the News recog-
nizes to be of snch vast and over
topping Importance to the buyer ans
seller, forgetting that the little re.
ceipt that passes between these par
ties, fiSes without appeal, the pnce
of the labor of whole years effort
to him who digs his hard earned
pittance out Of cotton row.
The bill does not contemplate n
cents additional cost to,thc producer,
it only seeks to have his pounds Of
cotton, the representatives of sea.
sons labor, correctly, fairly, and
lmpartially weighed. Tie News has
made the calculation and finds that
the bill imposes tax upon the pro-
ducer, amounting In the aggregate to
two hundred thousand dollars. A nice
plum to be dropped into the pocket
of the Galveston city weigher, to be
sure, and which would certainly JUS
tify good deal of espense in defeat
ing Mr.. Simpsons BILL.
The News Is either grossly igno-
rant or grossly venal. it will con-
suit Paschal's Digest, it will find
that the Office has existed by law ever
since 1856, and Simpsons bill re-
duces the number of officers from
seven to one. The measure covers In
terests of no ordinary character, and
which the people of Texas propose to
guard. against the many temptations
and Establishments the News and itf
friends know SO we'll how to throw
round an officer who occupies posi-
tisn Of trust and possible emolument
and whose tenure is, to some extent
under their own control.
The "logic" of the News article il
that an important production, OIL
rather number OF them, upon which
are based the planting and CONNER
cial interests of the State, is matter
upon which the people should not
have q voice, and their representa-
tives the power to act. This will
not DO, Mr.. News. The people will
guard this interest with a jealousy
commensurate with its importance
to them. They look upon it as an
interest of far too grave character
to give up to men, whose sole con
nection with it is, to wiring from the
toll-bsgrimme' laborer, the last out
side cent possible.
Our distinguished friend, who is al