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

is, as regard it, unconstitutional, anu
will be so declared if ever tested in our
higher courts. What right, sir, have
we to jerk up every eighteen-year-old
boy, who has but just crossed the line
into our state and breathed the air OF
our Texas climate for fifteen days-a
boy, perhaps, without home, money or
friends-and compel him, under pen
atty of arrest and Imprisonment, to
work ten DAYS on our public roads or
pay tax of SO? Do We allow him
to vote? Do we invest him with the
rights of citizenship? AS the gentle
man from Kerr has justly said, 1t Is
taxation without representation; a
featured of the law not only odlous and
Objectionable, but repugnant to the
fundamental principles of republican
and democratic government.
What we want in the thirty-ninth
representative district, composed
OF four of the most fertile,
wealthy and populous counties
in the state, is law that
will fall equally aon capital
and labor-a law that will mete out
an equal division of the burdens OF
working the roads upon the poor man
and the rich mana law that Will
keep the roads in repair, partly by
manual labor, and partly by a small
ad valOrem tax.
This, sir, is what my people want.
If the bill is engroSSed and becomes a
law in its present form, article 400,
OF our revised civil statutes, ought
also to be amended, so as to include
those, now exempt from road duty,
between the ages of forty-five and tif-
ty-five years. This should be done to
make up for the reduction in time
contemplated by the bill under consid-
Grafton, and in order that our citizens
who live in the black land belt may
derive some benefit at least from the
road law. Soon, doubtless, we will
be permitted to vote upon a
constitutional amendment that
will have for its object
the levying of a small ad valorem tax
to aid the manual force in working
the public roads. Until then I trust
this legislature will enact no law,
adopt no amendment, that does not
embody these principles and forever
abrogate law that is unjust and OPP
presSive in its conception and practi-
c;Illy inefficient and worthless in its
results.
Mr.. Robinson, of Jack, offered an
amendment providing that none but
convicts shall work on the roads
longer than five days.
Mr.. Chenoweth said he was about
to propose similar amendment.
A message was received from Gov.
Ireland, the same as given in our re-
port of the senate proceedings, and
after being read by the clerk the
speaker announced reference of the
various subjects embraced In it to ap-
propriate committees.
Mr.. Cochran, speaking on the pend
ing bill, said while he was in favor of
the least number of days for work on
the public roads, he was also opposed
to the law. He was willing that the
roads should go qnworked rather than
impose upon tht people Of Texas.
Mr.. RogerS-l don't claim to be
look at it from business standpoint.
[ sympathetic with the poor man,
but there was another side to
the question. Is it not the
man who owns property who pays the
taxes? Texas takes the immigrant by
the hand and says we will pay your
taxes for the education of your chill
dren, and demand from you only a
part of your time and labor by work
ing on the roads and highways. We
claim no taxes from you. but will edu-
cate your children. The property
holders of Texas, who are held up
here to their prejudice, are the men
who bear the burden of these taxes,
not the men you would exempt.
Mr.. Stout agreed with Mr.. Rogers.
If we come down from the present
system it leaves us without roads. If
we had small tax it would do, but
We can't, under the constitution, effect
that change.
Mr.. Davis, of Lamar, argued that the
amendment would render the road
system imperative. He favored the
bill in Its original form. Under Gov.
Davis it was vainly attempted to en-
force the law under the ad valorem
system. Bone and muscle were val
ued at $1,000 to the man, and wanted
the law to work on bone and muscle
as well as capital.
Mr.. Robinson, of Jack, thought that
when young wanted to educate him.
self we should throw no burden on
him. In sanitary view there were
objections to making too young men
do such work. The tax was great
burden on laboring men, The poor
man will always have to bear an un-
just proportion of the burden, no mat
ter how you legislate.
Mr.. Moore, of Eastland, proposed
an amendment, eXempting the blind,
inirm, manned and confirmed invalids
under fifty years Of age.
Mr.. Ethridge-I want to say that l
oppose the amendments because I'M
der the sCrict rules of the constitu-
ton the bill would take away every
officer, and would put an end to gov
eminent in Texas. My first reason
for opposition is the proposed eXemp-
ton of youths who are SO fortunate as
to be able to be off at school and
that for this very reason it would at
feet those who would be at home on
road duty. This was the quint-
escence Of class legislation and an in
justice to the youth who depends on
daily labor. If nothing better than a
reduction of the time can be had,
then / want that, but before all, /
want the adjustment of this obnoX-
ious law. If could own every acre
of land from Austin to Georgetown,
not one cent would l give to keep up
those roads. They are component
part of civilization and it is every
mans duty to work and keep them
up. In ante-bellum days the man
who had between fifteen and sixty
slaves contributed his portion as JUS
tice demanded, but is that the case
now? He may own their value
but feel under no obligation.
Mr.. Armistead said (: If any man
worked at all under the law, the law
must be in conformity with the con-
stitution. If that is not changed, the
roads would be in worse conditi on.
A man who is forty-fiye has serV ed
his time. Under twenty-one to eigh-
teen young men should serve. This
public duty was required like mill
tary service. We are entitled to COM
pei men to work. Under Gov.
Coke it was required. 1 am sorry l
don't hail from Dallas, where rail-
roads converge, and the country is a
network of railroads. L want to
compel corporations and railroads to
work on the roads.
Mr.. Chenoweth said he had not
proposed to say anything in reference
to this question, but had one or two
arguments to offer in reply to his
friend who would throw shield over
the class of people who attend public
schools. The argument he said was
fallacious, because men in Incorporate
ed towns are not called on to do the