The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-02-01

men and farmers against tnaI Oh Une
merchants and bankers. But even in
England and under the common law
there was some protection, because
under it a lien can't be acquired till
the property is paid for. find no
sufficient guarantee in the bill. What
would a Judgment with ten per cent
damages be worth? AS to giving
young men a chance, a chance to do
what? to speculate at the risk of
others money or credit. If we have
reached that point, this bill meets it.
Mr.. Tucker, of Anderson - want
to say that 1 have really no enmity to
the city of Galveston, but / have some
experience in shipping cotton to diff
ferent factors in that city. My eX-
perience is with reference to this right
to hypothecate cotton. In every in
stance the account has come up
against my interests, where the men
l shipped to have failed, owing me
small balances. / am unwilling to
vote for any measure that will give
factors more power than they have
already. | wOnld vote against the
abrogation of the common law rule,
and especially any statute granting
power to control the products of the
planter and producer in the hands of
factors.
Mr.. Taylor argued as to the effects
of the bill on landlords and tenants
compared with the operations of the
common law, under the thirty days
lien. Under the common law the
landlord might enforce this lien. I'm
der this bill that would be taken
away. He was not opposed to prop
er bill, but it was right that the law
should effect the buyer and producer
alike. The bill changed the common
law rule that parties holding goods aS
agents could not pledge them. Ii
these days of loose operations anC
speculation in futures, instead of Civ
ing more latitude, we should restrict
the means of wild speculation. FRAUD
was so patent and Swindlers ran a
large so freely, we ought to restric
their means of operation. There wa
no reason to disturb the law as it eX
lists.
Mr.. Frymier spoke briefly in OF
position to the bill. He thought &C
cording to Mr.. Labatt's own figures
that as Galveston and Houston, com
! pared to other cities, were doing s.
well we had better let well enougl
alone.
Mr.. Upton was not opposed to tn
7 law which might be said he amende
to make it good one. He did not Sc
why he should control cotton after
} have the money, say four-fifths of tn
] value of my cotton. He argued tina
, there was no absolute protection fror
= rascality beyond the bill of lading
| 7
Galveston, and my merchants sell
) my cotton for five cents when it
) really worth ten, my only remedy
by an action at law.
Mr.. Stagner said he was disposed t
} befriend the bill, and thought
+ should be considered on its merits a
: a whole.
t Mr.. Foster. of Limestone, agree
| with Mr.. Stagner. The bill didn
} preclude merchants from shipping
3 but only required written authorit
, before he could dispose of it. TIL
right of priority protected all partie
. under the lien.
5 Mr.. Caven said he was opposed t
/ the bill, and hoped the majority woul
| vote the bill down.
+ Mr.. Scott said he was a friend t
7 Galveston, DuC nad ODJecClOnS TO Tn
{ bill. First, it made factors in effeC
| owners where they have made az
! vances; second, it creates capital on
, of cotton. by means of which me-
} without actual means can do bushes
t on fictitious capital, or means othe
) than their own.
Mr.. Caven moved to lay the motto
: to consider section by section on tn
. table. Carried.
? Mr.. Wurzbach thought that wit
3 proper amendments the bill could b
/, passed. He was not afraid to vot
t yea or nay.
After minor discussion and pro
: posed amendments the bill was lost
, ayes Is. nays 81.
l Mr.. Rosenthal explained his vote i
t the negative, that he was in favor c
the bill but not in its present shape.
Mr.. Taylor, chairman of cOmmitte
: on rules, reported favorably on tn
} resolution of Mr.. Cochran, which wa
/ adopted, changing the pay of witnes:
es before the house to 81 per day.
On motion of Mr.. ROSenthal, tn
: house adjourned till 10 a. IN. Saturda.