Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-01-20

allow them to support ii on the
grounds of its suppus unconstilu-
tiOnality, to point hun out single line
or suggestion in that instrument by
which they had authority to pay u
alary to their sergeant at arms, their
pages or even the governors private
secretary. The constitution never
provided for these necessary public
aijuncts, and Yet where was the man
who could say, constitution or no con-
stitution, that they were not entitled
To be paid, and their services could pos
sibly he dispensed with. II gentlemen
were so very conscientious in opposing
the appropriation for New Orleans on
the ground that the constitution did
not provide for it, then why do they
not also oppose appropriations Tor the
salaries of the officers named, because
both cases are analogous. For his
part, he would vote u nave Texas
represented at the coming exI osition
for two reasons: First, because he
knew the state would be benefited
thereby, and secondly because he be-
lieved they had full power to do so I'M
der the constitution.
Mr. Hill dissented on grounds sim.
liar to those given by the other oppo'
nents OF the measure.
Mr. Fisher of Hays made strong
argument for the bill, holding that no
nlt...A,ire not prohibited was inhibited
10y the constitution.
Mr.. Chenowe,n delivered a flowing
speech i'll favor of the app opriatioD,
and called on The members, as they
valued the honor of Texas and as they
gloried in the prosperity of the south
to see that the state was represented
as il ought to be aJ the New Orleans
exposition.
Mr. Foster of Limestone thought the
constitution barred the appropriation,
and lie would therefore opp 'se il.
Mr.. Thompson (the author OF the
bill delivered IA stirring speech III ITS
support
Mr.. swan spoke cloquently on the
same side, and concluded by express
ing the hope that when the great sis'
terhoud OF Southern states meet at
New Orleans there shall be no vacant
chair, aud that above all Texas, proud
rexns, shall there occupy the leading
posi- ion it is entitled to hold.
Mr.. Chambers also favored the ap-
piopriation, and in support OF his ar
guneut cited section Al, page 81 81 the
constitution, which provides that com
pensati0n sha be awarded all agents,
servants and contractors of the state
not otherwise provided for by law.
He held that the commissioners pro-
posed TO be sent TO New Orleans and
represent the state were clearly It's
agents, aud AS such the appropl iation
was clearly in accord with the consli-
III ion.
Mr.. scott, In support of the bill,
smoke as follows: II ste, sir, that law
yers diiii-r in their construction OF the
constitution, just ls preachers do about
the bible. aud consider the constitu-
tlonal objection raised 10 this appro-
priation u reflection ON the legal aDiii'
| ~ of the eXe9utive of tnis great state,
| becaus. he, learned rs he l. Ia the law,
,specinlly invites our attc ition to THIS
question in his proclamation as a nc
| subject for legislation, and l stihii
treat this constitutional muddie
| Ia the house to-day ON this snsJeci us
/ would nasty, filthy mud-hole found
on the highway Of stnte progression,
and shalt Jump As high rs ! can aud
lean, as far as can aud clear the iiithy
puddle at one bound, aud cast my vote
| Tor t2D,ODO.n
Mr.. Dennis also spoke ~ favor oil the
bill. aud urged strong and able argu-
ments in support Of II,
Messrs Patterson. Etherldge and
Jones followed in Opposition TO lht
| bill, but all Of them opp 'sei ~ i'r ns
reason tnat they believed IL uhcohsti