The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-01-24

/ farmers, live close TO Dallas and have
the advantages arising from such prox'
unity. BY aparity of reasoning there IS no
limit at which the argument could logi-
cally be stopped. Why not, on the same
principles and with the same justice, only
differing in degree, annex Richardson,
White Rock, Eagle Ford, Jimtown and LIS
bon. and compel them to help pay the debts
fastened upon Dallas by the self.styled men
OF progress. in wasting 100000 on the
Dallas Il Wichita iniquity, and unnecess,aa'
riiy granting the same amount 10 the l.
& p. road The $4,000 interest annually
drawn from our people on these two
amounts, besides the interest ON other
debts, is the REAL incentive TO this annexa,
ton scheme. AS tax-paying citizen OF
Dallas, without an inch OF ground IN the
proposed territory, my conscience says IL Is
not Just. Is our limits now are, large
portion OF the town, perhaps one'third OF
| It's territory, gets no earthly benefit from
the city in the gas-works, works, po'
lice or street improvements; yet its people
are equally taxed for all these. The rev.
enues mainly 60 to the benefit OF more
favored portions Of the town. Those deriv-
ing no benefit have made no serious COM
plant, simply because they believe the
limits placed too large for an equitable
distribution Of benefits.
If living near town justi6es the ABSORB.
ton OF farmers, quite number OF
them like John III. Cole, Captain
Jefferson Peak, John j. Eakins and numer.
Gus others, can retort that they settled
here "a, first" when Dallas had only 800
or 400 people, or village, and their farms
are still out in the country. All OF them,
doubtless, look forward to the day when
the town will grow to them and their land
will beneeded for town purposes. When that
day comes they will willingly come in
But till then, and so long as their farms re-
main in the country, they will protest
against being taxed to pay these debts or
town expenses, and they do not wish our
representatives at Austin to permit this
burden to be fastened on them.
So far as known, this movement, as well
as other proposed changes in the city char
ter--soms good and some not-springs from
the city council and eight gentlemen Sc
lected by the mayor. The people were not
consulted and knew nothing about 1t till
the proposed amendments were published.
The new charter oflS76 was manufactured
In the same undcmocratic way, and has had
too many different constructions
on important points. Among other
antirepublican features, 1t took
from the people their previous
right to elect the city attorney, treasurer,
engineer and perhaps other officers, confer
ring the same ON the city council. Why
so2 If tho people can be trusted to elect
the mayor, marshal, assessor and aldermen,
pray tell us, gentlemen, il they are not
equally qualified to elect the other officers
nsmedY Yet this council retains this
power over the people. For one, !
believe every city officer and all school
officers should be elected by the
people, whose servants they profess
to be, but whose masters, as matters stand
in Dallas, they in fact are. Such thing
was never heard Of In the towns ofthe New
England states, where, despite our ideas OF
their federal politics, the true principles
OF democracy have ever prevailed in school
matters, and where free schools have been
popular because the people OF each town or
township controlled their own schools.
And so it will be in Texas whenever the
same rules of government are applied. But
every move in Dallas, from first to last, has
been on the dictatorial, despotic idea
the people-the parents, have no voice.
FREE-THIHKER.