The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-04-12

W. the prom. nom the cotton crop is eSti-
mated az SlS,VoO,WO, while that FROM
lhe beSSemer steel interest alone
produced IS sS2,UO,0O, Under this protec.
northern brethren. The north has received
some $50 10000 acres of railroad lands,
while the south has received only 5000 600.
We eSpend SSl0, 100000 annually.
and iour-hi,hs of il, is Law
lshed IN the northern states.
Once Massachusetts boasted only of her ice
crop, Vermont only her marble, aud now
they both roll in wealth under the inilu.
ence OF that protective tariff, while the
south, with all her natural wealth is
poor. Make these great industrial
issues aud press them in our interest, and
we viii do away with the bloody shirt busi.
ness au throuSh the country. This tariff
question Is swallowing up all the
TO result in the true principle
have announced. Let MS not equivocate,
but be bold in our positions, and we will
march on TO victory in the next presidential
canvass. In the last race the rcpuh.
lcans saw there was enough money
IN the treasury, they feared a reduction OF
the tarlf as further accumulations were
unnecessary. They were defeated in the
elections, they undertook TO reform that
tariii that brought money into the treasury
not needed and what did they do. Reduced
the internal revenue taxation, such
as on perfumes, bankstock SOAP,
tobacco, matches, etc but they did not
abolish single internal revenue ofhcel Yet
ms Tor duties on imports, which SO helped
the manufacturers, such as cotton, and
wool, aud iron, and crockery, the burden
remains almost as heavy as ever. ESQ,
striking an average, the tariff is nov as
oppressive To the taxpayer, while IL
puts less money into the treasury. This ls
pretense and u fraud upon the American
people by the republican party. It is an
insult to an intelligent people, and the
democratic party must resent 1t. How was
this bill put through congress- The senate
assumed awrongtul invasion in originating
this bill by taking u little revenue
bill and tacking on the tariff bill. | de-
nounced 1t all through the session. In the
house, under Il sort of revolutionary bill
she amendments made by the senate by
one vote were rejected, and republican
conference committee undid oil the senate's
good work. The representatives of
the people had no chance to make
your revenue law, for the session was at its
Clese. The law as IL now Is, is more odious
by far than its predecessor. The Texas
delegation did all they could to defeat tho
/ iniqultous measure. ! believe the next
presidential canvass will be fought
on this ground. 1t is an
important question, and ! say TO the
people of Texas that we should he taxed
| only for the support of the government.
In regard to our proposed Mexican re-
ciprocity treaty, would say that
it is but the opening wedge
for great business that must flow to us,
OF dement's that must come from Central
and South America rs well and this same
infamous tariff has been In the way aud
prevented our competition with European
nations, but gradually interest must be de
veloped from that treaty in the way of
mining, manufactures, ETC., and Texas will
be the entrepot tor all the great trade,
What in view OF this are q few cents from
wool, under high tariff, under that treaty
with low tariff, OF all these? Our
cities must swell to immense
population and wealth If there
were free trade with Mexico, western Texas
would grow as though it had been touched
by maglcian's hands. This same recip-
rocity treatment Ia the commencement OF u
grand era for Texas, and in the next ses-
sion IL Will be given TO the country.
To conclude, | believe our chances In the
next presidential canvass are for success
but we must know no division, we must
stand boldly by principle and honest con-
viction, and especially on this great tariff
question. He who iavorsa protective tariff,
honest though he be, tavors aprinciple that
has no place IN democratic convention.
or in the equality of taxation principle.
This honesty, with and by the people, will
alone perpeiuate this rap1 clo. The
democracy should candidyara clcarIymake
known their principles, and should constr
tutc this tarlil the leading national issue to
prevent sectlonalisIG And nowlet me ext md
my thanks to those lair lady auditors, and
to you Legislators, and my congratulations
Tor the successful termination of your
labors here.
The kenady Tin Manufacturing and
Hardware company of Dallas, capital stock
$4,000, filed charter to-day.
The comptroller Today received from tax
collectors over $50 600,
THE COURTS
Court of Appeals Affirmed Blassingame
VS.. the State, from Ellis county; Phillips
VS.. the State, from Cooke county, Burns vs..
State, from Collin countyi Bunis vs.. Farm
ers' & Merchants bank, from Lamar
county; Womaok VS.. Rose, from Lamar
county; ii. IL y. G. railway w..
Tralor, from Grayson county.
Reversed and remanded: Futon
IL Ross VS.. the State, from Denton county;
Anderson VS.. the State from Dallas county
Reversed and dismissed: Day vs.. the State,
from Denton county; Freese VS.. the State,
from Lamar county; six cases Jones VS..
the State, from Lamar county; Eddleslein
VS.. the State from Lamar county Gibbons
vs.. Braden, from Lamar county. Appeal
dismissed. kincard vs.. Matthews, from
Collin county Caldwell vs.. Randall ct al. f,
| from % tra pnri,,t lal nd N
confirmed. Following were submitted on
brief for the state Gordon VS.. the State,
from Dallas county, Steele vs.. the State,
from Dallas county; Turner vs.. the State,
from Dallas county Clark. vs.. the State,
from Tarrrant county. Following are
briefs for both parties. Ex parte Bergen,
from Parker county; Grant IL
Berry VS., Williams Il Oliver, from Ellis
county; Mabry vs.. Fitzgerald, from Ellis
county; G., l.. " N. W. railway VS.. Luck,
from Ellis county; Beatty VS.. the State,
from Ellis county; Woolsey VS.. the State,
from Ellis county; Hamilton, Brown & Co.
vs. the East Texas Fire Insurance company, =,
from Dallas county; Hyatt vs.. the State,
from Ellis county. Following are briefs
and oral arguments of both parties:
Brown ct al. VS. Robinson, from Tarrant
county; Bowser & Lennon ct al. vs.. Will
lett ct al, from Ellis county; LeGierse IL
Co. VS.. Pierce, from Wise countv Creswell
vs. the State, from Tarrant county; Newton
ct al. vs.. Hughes ct al, from Grayson coun.
ty; motion 10 dismiss submitted; Martin vs..
Merchants and Planters bank, from Gray
son county; submitted on briefs and writ
ten argument for anpellees. Heatherly vs..
the State, from Lamar county. Motion for
rehearing submitted. Neeley vs. the State,
from Dallas county. Certiordri granted.
Supreme court Holland vs.. Focke and
Milkins, affirmed; Russell ct al VS..
Freedman Il Co., dismissed. Submitted on
oral argument and briefs for appellant:
Warner vs. Carson ct al, from Parker
county; Franco-Texas Land company vs..
Lagle, from Parker county; Cohen vs.
Munson, from Grayson county. Submitted
on briefs and oral argument of both
parties; Houston & Texas Central railway
vs.. Leaky, from Grayson county; Peters
vs. Reed ct. al from Tarrant county; Hnus-
ton & Texas Central railway vs.. McNa-
mara, from Grayson county; McCamant ct.
al. vs.. Balsell, from Tarrant county: and
Lewis VS.. Alexander, ct. al, passed to as
signment.