The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-09-18
G. w. Jones' Address.

Texas, is before the public. His first :
,ffort in this address lies in the direc- ,
ion of proving that the democratic
party in Texas is tickle in its utter /,
lnces, unstable in its opinions and
hence subject to the charge of insin-
certify. While THE STATESMAN does
not here propose to prove that what
Col. Jones says is false, it ridicules the
idea of man like him charging in
or insincerity against any,
body. His political history has been
one of supreme instability, and one of
the most fatal objections to him, adj
mitted by his warmest friends, is that
he is nothing more than a political
weathercock, changing with every
new political breeze, abandoning posi-
lions, apparently assumed upon con-
viction, whenever it might count
in his behalf. Jones has been
a wing, a democrat Che was a demo-
cratic lieutenant governor of Texas
a greenbacker, and now he is an indie
pendent in the race upon which he
enters. Fhe democracy may have
been unstable in its declarations; it
may have, under the influence of dem
agogues, leaned towards greenback-
ism, but lessons in consistency come
poorly from Col. Jones, whose record
is one of constant instability. He
charges that the present democratic
candidate for governor was the green
back candidate for congress against
Mr.. Schleicher in 1878; that when in
augurated in 1888 he declared for a
herd law, while the democratic plat
form opposes both greenbackism and
a herd law. Even if these things
be so, who is asking Col. Jones to give
them lessons in political consis-
stency? If the democratic party
need to be taught consistency,
let it go elsewhere than to the Bas-
trop candidate for inspiration. Be-
cause the governor declared in favor
of a herd law, it is wrong to charge
the democratic party with being in
favor of such a law, since a democrat
ic legislature failed to enact a herd
law, and the democracy now
declares unequivocally against it.
The democratic party is not
chargeable with the declarations of
Individual democrats, when it places
itself in antagonism to such declara-
tions, both in the legislature and in
state convention. Gov. Ireland, if
words convey meaning, did favor a
herd law, but he subscribes to the doc
trines of democracy, and hence is now
opposed to such law. 1t is observa-
BILE that, while Col. Jones
picks at democratic flaws, he
robs democracy of nearly all that is
good in his address. He steals demo-
cratic tariff thunder, saying "the
credit of a nation, instead of being
farmed out to classes, should be util-
lied in the interest of a whole people"
He wants public land secured to act
ual settlers, for which he is indebted
to democracy; he wants public educa-
ton, when he sees the democratic par
ty building up and sustaining one of
the grandest systems of public educa-
ton ever inaugurated. While he pre-
tends to be a strenuous advocate of
public education he takes Issue with
the democratic people of Texas for
adopting a constitutional amendment
providing for poll tax of one dollar
for free education. The object of this
objection is very plain, but
it will not count much III
securing him votes. He pretends
there was no necessity for such tax,
since, as he states, the state was then
taking in over five millions of dollars
annually from land sales for educa-
ton. These millions are permanent
fund, the interest upon which can
alone be applied to current expenses
of the schools. Would Col. Jones
squander the permanent fund, or was
his sole object in making this state
lnent to deceive? He says, "whoever
supports the action of the Houston
convention is for herd law and OPP
posed to education" Such declara-
lions are too silly to deserve notice;
they are simply demagogical, false.
The Houston convention was decided
on those two points, and no matter
what may have been the expressed
opinions of any state officer,
the democracy of Texas speaks une-
quivocally of both; it is against the
herd law, and in favor of liberal, free
education, and the record of demo-
cratic legislation shows what we
state. Of course Col. Jones opposes
the present jury system; his political
affiliations permit nothing else: but in
spite of his objection the people will
hold on to that which is creditable,
instead of disgracefuI. Col. Jones
makes several personal illusions,
which THE STATESMAN would not
undertake to deny. He has addressed
the public, and the people will pro-
coed to undress him of his political
aspirations in November.
THE Post asked, the other day, not
pertinently, but impertinently in the
connection in which the inquiry was
made, if fair was really going to be
held this year in Texas? The fair
association at Houston died many
years ago, but that is no reason why
the one at Austin should follow suit.
Lack of generosity, such as was shown
1rv@ 10 -