The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-01-30

WHEREAS. IL is the duty Of the United
States government TO furnish a force sne'
iclent TO meet the wants of the peopH;
be it
Resolved, That the sergeant-at-aryis is
Instructed To visit the poSt.nilite ofth,s eitN
10 inquire into the reasons for the resentim
ot the mail.
Wur2ebach offered an amend.nent au'
the speaker OF the house t. lay
the complaint before our representatives at
Washington, requesting then, TO ask the
post master general Tor rslief.
Chenoweth thought that th'soomrlaint
would be made known; thst vhile IN our
northern cities the mai "sSdellyeted at
the residences, the Culsen states govern
ment did not furnish Z LiVNnt taclllties 10
have the mail Of the 1h%snth legislature
transmitted to i,s deInauon,
Scott said lie reuu'tod she united States
marshal to inouirefi fiato the matter, who
up0n investigated Aad reported to him an
inSuillciency of once IN The offices, aud that
the postnater SHs m Mexico aud that one
clerk was ack
The resolu loo was adopted as originally
introduced Sth the amendment offered by
WurgebacA
Bv Kea,al-A resolution to appoint a
commi,ei to enquire into the'salts Of land
nnder thf act approved Aprii6, 1881, owing
VI th,fatt thHt the slarit AMI letter of the
law}ad been yinlate,ihy parties purchasing
mee land than the maximum rate through
aNcious names.
douse bill No. 20, by Rushing, requiring
Yersons TO work only live days per annum
hn public road, was taken up.
Cayen moved to postpone the special or.
der, as Rushing, the champion OF the bill,
was not present.
Rosenthal said that Rushing did not
wish the special order postponed because of
ms necessary absence.
Lakewood said that he hoped the bill
would meet the approval of the house.
That the people who worked the roads
were dissatisfied with the law as IL was
now; that they felt that the legislature i'm.
posed tax upon them of $40 per year,
and that they had no respect for the law,
They believed II to be unjust.
Mckinney moved to strike out the words
five days, and substitute eight
Taylor said that the idea of compelling
private citizens to work upon the public
roads, and Furnishing EN- for a failure to
do SO, had descended to us from monar-
chial government; that the present law was
severe and onerous burden upon the poor
man.
Nash offered an amendment to the amend
ment TO strike out eight days and insert
tour"
Scott favored the amendment of Nash.
and thought that the tinrn should
be leSsened rather than increased.
that the law at present taxation was without
representation. Young men owning no
property were compelled to work roads,
whereas Weather men, under the provis.
IONS oil the law, were exempt. Is this Jus.
ticeI Can we approve the present law let
us nave q change, so as tC equalize all tax.
alton and completely annihilate class leg.
islation. Property should be taxed for the
maintenance Of roads.
Mckinney of property for the
maintenance 0fpgblic roads has been tried
~ the state and proven to be a failure
The money appropriated for road purposes
was squaniered by officials. There
are nearly 4 thousand men in th,
small county which represent
VINO DO not pay any tax ut all, not even
poll-taS. Yet their children are educated
by property owners of the state, and th,
only service they render in return is the
small amount ofwork they do upon our
fattoh--i object t. th6 Bill betauae, a
adopted, il will leave our people in Tia,
bmCh.and districts practically without any
roads NJ all. only five deyg labor mon th,
roads in my county durin,
the yedl would be an absolut,
farce. What We want Is not modification
%, tnc present law, nor simply a reduction
o. tie time Of labor from ten DAYS 10 five
bat "a repeal of this odious law and the en-
gctment OF another th0t will bear equally
both upon capital aud labor. II we reduc,
the labor from ten 10 five DAYS we onght
to amend by making persons from - to b,
years old come under its opemtion. es
uecially when we consider that il is mi
class of mcu who own the bulk of tho prop
ertY OF the country.
Robertson, of Jack, offered substitute (,
the bin which provided that no persons, ey
ccpt county cvuyicts, should be compele,
to work roads more than five DAYS DARN.
the year, and that no young man actunlly
in school should be- required to work tb,
roads.
Cochran hoped the substitute wOuld uC
adopted. The law now required vouny
man to work the ronds. even if hc Lsd mai
been in the state over ten dnys.
Rogers opposed the substitute, for the
reason that propcrty.owners mid th. ,oycs
Of the government, and hc Thought il was
nothing but right that the poor men who
paid no taxes at all should contribute their
mite by working the roads.
Stout-The question with my people is
how can we have a halter gvstCm of rnndg
| shall oppose any shane or form of repeni
OF the present law until there is somctLinr
better substituted in its stead,
Davis, of LAMAR shall favor the adop.
ton of the bill, a. originally introduced.
think 1t is mps IN the right direction.
,oberlsOn-55,ope the substitute inst Of
icrcd will biui.doptcd. as | think n will
more nrarl,n .neet the wants of the prople.
EthridsI5dl oppose the substitute olIered
by thee Wtleman from Jack. because be
propOsc1o o exempt young men attending
schools. his is the very class that shouIl
be brouhII, under the operations of the
law. WHY ,ould thew be eyemnied Inc.
cause they q. so fortunate as TO be abie Ia
attend school, and Young loo poor 10 attend
required 10 work public roads,
Armsted thought that as the roads under
the present laS zero nnt nrnnorIy to,,, nv,
he could see NO goud that n reJnc,inn
would DO.
Chenoweth was opposed TO the entire
road law. and considered il iuinni,ous and
unjust. " '''''''' '''
Finch was oupoged To- obnnyo in onv
WAY under the present law Nnt norn than
nineteen twen,icths Of the peopir worked