The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1876-08-24

texas Snoulu oe IN the future as she IL now
one and undivided, now and for ever.n
Adopted unanimously By a rising vote.
Mr.. Coleman then submitted the follow
ing moiion: "a l
Mr. SpeakeT--I desire to utilize the one
moment ieft Of this session 90 move that
the thanks of this House be rendered to
the Hon. William Thompson, of Washing
ton county, who has, as Speaker pro tenppors,
so frequently presided over this House dur
ing occasions of necessary absence on the
part of the regular Speaker, for the dignity,
impartiality and uniform kindness with
which he has discharged his duty.
Unanimously adopted.
Mr.. Thompson returned thanks in few
appropriate remarks.
The hour of ~ NJ having arrived, the
Speaker declared the H ,use of Representa-
lives of the present session of the Fifteenth
Legislature adjourned sine die. PEE,
seo.1e. s.
Senator Piner rose % question Of per-
sonsl privilege, and read the following,
AID asked that it be spread upon the
Journals:
Mr.. Presi6ent-The people of Texas can
at this time have no trouble in understand
ing what is meant by the words 1.-THE ma
Legislature. The majority" in the SEN
ate, to which am proud to say belong,
have not heretofore thought proper to re-
ply either to the protests of the minority
or to the misrepresentation contained in
certain newspapers in regard to the motives
that influenced their action in refusing to
adjourn on the thirty-frst of July. l do
not wish 10 say anything now which may
appear offensive to any member of this
body, nor shall l intentionally do SO, but
as q member of this Senate | claim the right
to place upon record the motives that in
f1uenced me on so important an occaSIon. L
do not deem it proper here for me to dis
cuss the question rs to whether the Senate
| had right to withdraw its consent TO the
adjournment on the thirty-irst, nor as to
whetherthls is Raw AIDE jare or de fdctO leg
islatute.S a majority ot us believed that
| our vote tn adjourn was not irreyocable,
and that we had the right to withdraw the
consent heretofore given; We believed that
thereafter, till we formally adjourned. this
| would be legislature de jure ct de fdctO.
We have had no reason 10 change that
| opinion, nor do fear that any court will
ever question Its correctness.
As TO the propriety of our adl turning on
the thirty-first, 1 might safety risk the
whole question upon the statement of the
! fact that for three, aoeekS since thai time we
| have been working industrioush, holding
| two and sometimes three sessions In each
day and night - many of our committees
meeting at night and yet VIC have only
now completed the work OF passing laws
that were absolutely essential to carrying
| on the State government under the new
OonstituCiou. At the date It which the
majority proposed to adjourn, We had not
passed the school law, not single deticien-
cy or appropriation bill, no tax law,
besides many other laws of almost equal
Importance Indeed, the minority state IN
their protest that there we're is of these
importanS acts upon the Presidents table
at the time they proposed to adj urn, and
I have no doubt the statement Is correct.
Many of these acts were very important
and were in various stages Of progress after
ardent and sometiaes protracted discus
sion, not only i'll the two houses, but in the
| various committee rooms. Months of time
had been employed upon them, and ali
Il would have been lost had we then ad-
/ jpurned.
did not think, with all due respect to
others who held different views, that we
had the moral Or legal right to adjourn.
IL was the avOwed intent of the minority
to anjourn the L gislature in order to de-
feat the extension of time to certain rail
road corporations, 10y defeating Senate, bill
! No 303, which was iptepd ed for the relief
4 of four roads, three of which Rave since
been granted twelve months extension of
time, and the fourth (the Texas and Pa
cific) denied even thirty days, and large
n number of the minority voting for the ex-
J tension of time to said three roads.
!, Hence it was the evident intent of the
win ifu RI cd in m M
} the extension asked by the Texas and Pa
cific road. If that motive would justify
, them IN defeating and indefinitely postpon.
ing legislation that was absolutely neces
sary for carrying on the government, il
, certainly seems strange that the ma Irity
should be censured for refusing to sacri-
fee all the other interests of the State to
the defeat of a. measure that they (the
! maj rity) thought eminently just and prop
er. If the majority had the right to vote
} an adjournment in order to defeat meas
u ure to which they were opposed, had not
the majority the right-teFefu se'to adjourn
when adjournment sneant sthes defeat o.
their wishes? If legislatures always sd-
, jour ned when majority wished an act u
, pass, and the minority did not, it occur,
10 me that legislation would not progress
rapidly, even with the privilege of called
/ sessions.
But 1t has teen said that all the unfin
: ished business could have been disposed
! of at a called session, Without arguing
gested by his Excellency the Governor il
J his message of the thirty-tirst ultimo, Twill
say that those who made this assertion die
so without due reflection.
l have already alluded 10 the vast amount
J of work then pending before the Legisla
ture. Many of these acts had been the sub
| ject oflobg, ardentrsnd heated debate. anC
had only passed to their iii ferent readings
by small -IpajOrities SOME had passed u
their third reading, others 20 engressment
: and had we adjourned, all this work would
have gone back, and, If ever acted upon, j
would nave been upon their being reintrc
8 duced, going again through committee
and all their three readings, with u repetl
ton of all the former amendments, debate
? and delays. l venture the assertion tina
had we adjourned on the thirty first, to-da,
: would have fund US back again abou
: where we were on the thirty-first, and u,
. progress made, thus necessitating anothe
{ called sessi ,n. No called session Can las
D longer than thirty days, or under any cir
cnmstances, thou4 h the members might b,
e willing to work for nothing. See articl
| 8, section 40, of the Constitution Tn
: llbusiness that has been done in the twenty
! zone days since the thity first could no
: have been done at one callrd sSS-isin, .hsrS
, fore II would have been necessary 10 hav'
1 at least two called sessions. Bs@ides tn
a costs to the Safe 10 the per diem to tn
( members would have been increased at
= fearful rate at time when our State finance
Q are already staggering under load OF IN
E creasing Indebtedness.
a Members of the minority in, b9th house
g. assert that they we're in ADo degree in
Q .Auenced by the difference between 81 anS
50 per day, and / for one believe them
but it is an annoying coincidence that man
Q of those who were most bitter against tn
,. majority Tor their refusal to adj. Urn hal
Ie previously aunou nCed fhat they would ad
IT journ because-slses wanted the'<5 per DIE
Is instead Of the $2.
n And tha ,Srsfs,sff;f,., Ii e<r,ed l,v - lars,