The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-02-01
and duties. and afixing penalties, was

aiken up.
Mr.. Labatt said: Before there is |
my discussion of the bill upon its |
merits, l desire TO explain its pro-
visions. There was great necessity
for the passage of this bill. Some
will say they don't understand its
merits. If they have any questions
10 ask, will answer them as well as
| can at the end of my argument. He
then proceeded to give the history of
the bill. 1t was the same bill known
as "the factors bill" introduced in the
last legislature, which passed the SEN
ate and was defeated in the house be-
cause it was not reached. He had
presented the identical bill, which had
been printed, so that all could under
stand its provisions.
The Oleander City of Galveston,
which he represented, had great need
of such bill. 1t would, he argued,
bring capital, confidence and trade to
that city; would build up the city as
a commercial metropolis, and make
important seaports at Sabine, Arkansas
and the mouth of the Brazos. 1t was
not merely Galveston measure, but
was necessary to other seaports OF
Texas, to attract and bring to them
the trade which the railroads were
tapping. But, important as was the
measure to Galveston, Houston and
other cities, the Importance was not
appreciated, and the same bill had
been defeated time and again, each
time by the action of single body OF
the legislature. 1t had never failed
to pass either the senate or the house.
Mr.. Labatt spoke at some length,
strongly advocating the bill, and read
ing extensively from authorities to
show that it was not in conflict with
the requirements of the general law
as to principal and agent. There was
no law now by which factors could
raise money to get back their advances
on consignments to them of cotton
and other produce. He read from 90
Texas reports and McCreery VS.. Bar
low to show that under the common
law the mere fact of possession was
not sufficient for party to hypothe-
cate property, and argued that it was
the province of the legislature and
not the courts to effect the change and
remedy the defect in the operations OF
the law. AS it now exists, where a
factor has loaned money on goods he
can't repledge them even for the same
amount. The common law says he
can't do it. He cited Evans and Story
on agency and the general rule as LAID
down by Kent on the subject, that
| third persons are bound to know the
extent of the authority of factors
with whom they are dealing. We
must come to the legislature or tram
| n aT
to do it, or will you strangle the effort
to relieve the people of these burden:
to commerce. Give us a chance, as
they have at Chicago, st. Louis
New York and other cities.
Now, Mr.. Speaker, why should we
not come to the legislature and ask il
| to remove this harsh law? The diff
Guilty has been in getting the action Of
both houses. The gulf city demanded
of the legislature this protection t.
her traders. The California trade
even is going to New Orleans. The
spices of India, the teas of China, anC
| the trade of Japan are going there
Pass this bill and it will soon give III
a population of 10000 in Galveston
and 100000 in Houston. He quoted
statistics from the News, as the great
commercial organ of Texas, to show
| the comparative increase in trade OF
Galveston over New Orleans anC
other cities. He called attention
especially to the cotton report of the
News, showing receipts of 600,0O(
| bales this year against 100000 last
year. The receipts of New Orleans
had increased but 10 per cent, Savan
nah 2, Charleston s, Mobile 10, Nor
folk %, Galveston so, and Houston 50
This in the face of the fact that New
| Orleans had the advantage over the
bar of the river. desire, he added
| to call attention to the effect
of the operations of the Central rail
road bringing into Houston one hun
dred per cent more trade, or as the
| figures show 220,267 bales of cottoI
this year, against 12S,491 bales last
year. The ''City of Rochester" draw
ing twenty-five feet eleven inches
had passed over the bar at New Or
leans with a cargo equivalent to 1900
bales of cotton. What we needed il
Galveston was the facilities of trade
and to get these we must induce CAPT
tai. How can we ship grain in large
quantities unless we have har-
bors and elevators? You must I'm.
derstand we can't ship it as it comes
in bulk by the car load; and how car
you command trade without money
and how can you have money to adj
vance or afford to do so if you cannot
go to the banks and borrow it back
from them?
Mr.. Labatt said he was free to adj
init that there was one objection
which might be raised to the
bill, that it would enable
young men to do business without
capital of their own. But this he re.
garded as rather an argument in its
favor. Any law that would do this
and open chances for enterprising
young men, was certainly desirable
so that they would not be merely
hewers of wood and drawers OF
water. 1t was what had built up
Kansas City and other cities in the
west so rapidly, where there was nc
occupation tax such as we have in
Texas. He was in favor of giving
Every enterprising young man in the
state a chance.
He cited a memorial in opposition
to the bill from merchants of Crock
EFT, and combatted their views as fall
lacious, and, in conclusion, said he de-
sired the bill to be taken up and its
merits fairly considered, section by
section.
Mr.. Upton thought it best to take
it up in this way, and that it would
save time in discussion.
Mr.. Labatt-There is nothing in it
that shakes any law or rule of the
common law. 1t simply permits fac
tors to raise money already loaned or
advanced by them to the planters. In
der its provisions you will find money
flowing into Houston and Galveston,
for 1t will give confidence, and
capital will not be timid. 1t makes it
penitentiary offense to borrow when
they have not advanced on produce.
Every provision in the bill is for the
protection of the farmer as well as
the factor and warehouse men, and
the country as well as the city mer-
chant.
Mr.. Hazlewood-I regret to oppose
a measure so much favored by a mem
Der of the house. He would not, he
said, deal in generalities, and cited
page 345 of the revised statutes, which
was the statutory law in force. He
asked the gentleman from Galveston
to show any difference between the
bill which he proposes and the law
cited. He referred to the same case
BARLOW VS.. McCrery) quoted by Mr..
Labatt, and drew different conclu-
sions from his, as to the opinion of
the court, which says the act was in
tended to prevent simulated sales.