San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1885-05-07
NO. 81.
Address OF w. ID. Cleveland.


The following address was made by
Vim. ID. Cleveland, the Houston mer-
chant prince, to the members of the
Houston Cotton Exchange, soon after
adjournment Of the legislasure. 1t is
q sensible business argument, and
should be studied by every legislator,
as well as all who aspire to that hon
orable position:
II feel that we have made mis-
take in our recent efforts to re-
move the disastrous discrimination
now weighing 80 heavily upon our
commerce and industries. We made
a mistake, l say, in not taking proper
steps from the very start to enlist the
active and moral support of oil these
various interests, which had as much
at stake as any OF those engsged ex-
clusively in the cotton and grocery
business. II would be Improbable
to indulge in any fault finding now,
because we failed to carry the meas
ure known as the "Jones bill; "a meas
ure fraught with the utmost impor-
tance to us all but l may be permit
ted to say that if all the interests
which are injuriously affected, directly
or indirectly, by the present law had
been properly appealed to and con-
certed plan of action determined
upon by all, the pressure upon the
Legislature would have been so great
that body would not have dared to
trample upon the best and most inn
portant interests of our state in the
manner in which it has done.
There never was measure urged
upon the law makers of this or any
other state that was so imperatively
demanded by all the best interests, in
dustrial and commercial, of our people,
SO well founded upon justice and so
free from objection, and yet that was
treated contemptuously by those in
whose hands the welfare of the state
had been, for the time, committed.
Whenever we have had an opportuni-
ty of hearing the voice of the people
throughout the state upon this sub
iect it was unanimous in favor of the
measure. The country press has
earnestly advocatedit, and have yet
to see the man outside of the legisla-
ture who was not strongly in favor Of
it when tho object to be attained was
properly explained. Notwithstanding
this, the measure, as you we'll know,
was summarily killed in the senate on
no better ground, as am informed,
than sectional prejudice and personal
spite. Several senators had num-
Der of petitions sent them, covering @
large portion OF their constituency,
favoring the measure, and yet per-
sisted in voting against it. For what
motive nobody knows, and l doubt if
they themselves could explain. When
it is remembered that no opportunity
is ever lost by our legislature to i'm
pose some new tax or burden or re-
striction on the commerce of the state,
while, on the other hand, during the
past twenty years not n single meas
ure for the benefit of the business
community, as such, has ever been en-
tertained, much less passed, it be-
comes very grave question to my
mind whether our people have not
been most outrageously misrepresen-
ted, and their trust openly betrayed.
When their own representatives delib'
erately treat their petitions with con
tempt, and vote to continue the re-
strictions on the best interests OF the
state, without benefting any one, it
is time to ask who do these men rep
resent? They certainly do not rep
resent their constituency or the state.
Who then? This is very important
question, and the people will insist up
on having an answer. /, for one, am
strongly of the opinion that the mass
of our people love justice and fair
play, and if this matteris properly set
before them they would make it an
issue for the next legislature, and
make action imperative. / wouldnot
be surprised if the clamor became 80
loud as to bring about an extra ses
sion, and 1 would suggest and urge
that every one of us make it part of
our duty to agitate and urge this mat
ter in every legitimate manner possi-
BILE until relief is obtained. Let
every one of us make it our duty to
explain to our friends in the country
how insidiously the present law un-
dermines their best interests, how dis
it operates in their every
how through itproducers
get less money for their cotton than
if free competition was not restricted;
how other state products, such as su.
gar, molasses and grain, are made TO
cost more to them than to any one
living outside of the state; how capi-
tai and manufacturing interests are
driven out OF the state, leaving our
cities undeveloped, our laboring
classes idle, and generally paralyzing
every enterprise in our state. This
IS grievanceof eatmagnitude, and
Is we arein better position than any
1ne else TO watch the workings Of the
present law in all it ugly details,it be-
hooyes us more than any other class
n the community to agitate the sub
ect and bring about a reform