The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-03-22

NlIy iudllg udy . dlJCi tCIlNC uloCuooAOA
had been begun on the Chenoweth
bill, which the STATESMAN an
tagonized, for reasons already
stated in its columns, from the
time the bill became a public docu-
ment to the date of its defeat in the
house. The railroad bill approved by
the STATESMAN is the same as it ad-
vocated two years ago, the same, in
fact, which the railways then ap-
proved, the plan recommended in a
special message to the seventeenth
legislature by Gov. Roberts. The
character of the STATESMAN is too
well known for these insinuations
that its opinions are bought to be
credited by right thinking peo-
pie. 1t is regretted that in
a complete review of this con-
temptable letter, another cowardly
personal reference must be noticed.
DIR. Rutherford, of Houston, is rela-
tive and close personal friend of the
editor of this paper. He was made
state health officer during the first
term of Gov. Roberts administration
without his claims being urged either
through the columns of the STATES
MAN or personally by its editor. His
term expired and another was named
for the place, personal unkind feelings
having been engendered between
Gov. Roberts and DIR. Rutherford;
and yet the STATESMAN continued to
indorse Gov. Roberts administration
during his second term more
strongly even than it did during
the first. In the end it took
issue with him only on the
third term proposition. becoming
the advocate of Judge Ireland, i'm
pressed with the now apparently erro-
neOus idea that he would become the
real governor of Texas. not the pup
pet of men lacking the caliber to
shape the destiny of a great and grow
ing state. The editor of the STATES
MAN wrote a letter to Judge Ireland
just before he became governor, called
forth by written expressions made by
himself, disabusing his mind of
false impressions as to DR.. Ruther-
ford as state health officer, and
in that letter it was expressly
stated that the editor asked nothing
from Gov. Ireland for himself, and
that he did not ask the state health
position for his relative. Since then
the editor has never approached the
governor on the state health position,
though repeatedly urged by DIR. RS
friends to do so; and no reference to
the filling of the position, or anything
pertaining to it, has ever appeared in
the columns of the STATESMAN; while
even now no decision has been an
nounced as to who will be made the
state health officer. It's disagreeable to
be thus compelled to make personal
references, but they are necessary to
show the falsity of every part of
the above letter. 1t was written for
a base purpose, and its false concep-
tions become more worthy of con-
sideration when the quarter from
which the letter emanated is
considered. This letter was writ
ten in the governors office by one
of his secretaries; it contains points
which appear to stamp it as having
the approval of the governor, while
his secretary, Robert Josselyn, clothed
dark insinuations in passable English,
of which the governor has no concep-
tion. The letter has been dignified with
this lengthy notice because of its
source. To outrage a newspaper is n
small matter beside the fact that the
same agencies combine in plan
of outrage against the people of
Texas. The STATESMAN can help
itself, but the. people of Texas are
powerless when in the hands of those
who are moulded at will for personal
ends.