The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-04-12

Mr.. Gwen argued that it was prop
er to take up the resolution with the
bill. and let those who said "they had
a policy" enunciate their views. He
wanted all such expressions as the
majority" and minority" eliminated
from the discussion of this question.
Applause.
Pending Mr.. Armistead's remarks
the house adjourned till 3 p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Speaker Gibson and quorum pres
ent.
Mr.. Armistead concluded his argu-
ment on the penitentiary question,
dealing extensively in facts and fig
ures to show what is the policy of the
state since the action taken as to the
lease of the penitentiaries. He fig
ured out a let profit of S2S5. 1853 per
annum to be derived from hiring the
convicts on farms and railroads.
With such profit, the maintaining of
the SOP in the walls of the penitentia-
rieS was a small matter. Besides,
some could be worked to advantage
In the walls. He wanted the state TO
get back to the imprisonment system
as soon as practicable, by working the
convicts so as to make them self-sup-
porting without too great profit to the
state, as he was opposed to a continu-
Gus least system in toto, on the
grounds Of humanity. This $2S5, 16S
would sustain the 400 that could
now be confined in the walls.
The question was further discussed
pro and con by Messrs. Swan and
Jones, when Mr.. Nash moved to lay
on the table the motion of Mr.. Fry
mier that his resolution that the leg
islature should declare what is the
policy of the state, be considered in
connection with the bill.
The motion prevailed, SO the reso-
luton was tabled by vote of 81 ayes
to "a noes.
The question recurring on the Fos-
ter substitute for the third section of
the bill, Mr.. Upton said he hoped the
substitute would be adopted.
Mr.. Hill argued that the people had
not gone so far as to say there should
be no lease. They only disapproved of
the old contract. He read recent let
tiers from the peOple,as the first echoes
from them as to the late action of the
legislature on the subject.
Mr.. Taylor spoke in favor of the
Foster substitute, and said he did not
know that he should have voted for
the lease system as an original prop
osition, but it had been incorporated
in the law; the contract had been
made and he believed it should be
carried out. He didn't believe it to he
fn h11f hn
ton had come back upon us, and We
should provide that there should be no
lease and pass the amendment of the
gentleman from Limestone.
Mr.. Foster thought the matter
could be managed to save the state
from loss. He preferred the section
as in the bill.
Mr.. Tucker said he had voted
against the original lease, but he
wished to divest the minds of menu
beers of the idea that. voting against
the original contract should enter in
70 the aIestion now as an element or
factor to control his present action.
He had voted against that particular
lease, and was n6t-to be understood
as opposed to some better prop Qsition
than the old contract. 1t might be
too, so far as that was
concerned that the lessees
had not time to demonstrate
what would be the full effect of their
system. We might formulate bet
ter policy. He protested against the
presumption that the legislature
was opposed to all leases simply be-
cause we had voted down IL contract
that was Objectionable. He was op-
posed to the Foster amendment.
Mr.. Foster closed the discussion in
one of his usually frank and sensible
arguments. There were moi, he con-
tended 200 convicts more within the
walls than there were when the
leases were made. The convicts were
not utilized as some of them should
be in reformatory schools.
The Foster substitute for section
three was adopted. Ayes A, noes 3d.
The speaker stated as there was an
appropriation involved oy the adop-
tion of the amendment the house
would have to go into committee Of
the whole.
The house adjourned till 9 a. III
Monday.