Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-04-21

| convention; the call was TO "voters OF
the Fourth ward, - not TO the "Demo-
| cratic voters. - It was simply mass
| meeting, and called az such, of voters
like that In the Third ward which nomin-
ated Mr.. A. j. Chambers land lie no more
binding on Democrats. Besides, if it
had been called as q Democratic meet
| ing, il was without authority, as the
| chairman Of a ward cannot, of his own
motion, any more than private citizen,
call Democratic convention. He must
be authorized by the executive commit
tee.
There is another glaring misstatement,
in SAID article calculated to do Mayor
Pendleton great injustice. It charges
that Mr.. Bailey was displaced from
both the finance and water
works committees. Mr.. Bailey was re-
appointed to the same position on the
waterworks committee that he had held
before. And in place of the chairman
ship of the finance committee he was
made chairman of the very important
committee on sewers, the duties of which
are nearly related to those of the water
works committees; and it, therefore, no
doubt, occurred to the mayor that such a
place would be acceptable to Mr.. Bailey.
But, according to "Second Warder, -
Mr.. Bailey takes it as an affront because
he was 'displaced'' from the chairman
ship of the finance committee. But why?
Is it shown that Mayor Pendleton had or
could have any personal motive for so
doing? On the contrary, FSecond
Warder' shows that Bailey had done
nothing to give the mayor cause to en-
terrain such motive. His conduct was
generous and liberal. Then does
not fairness and common justice re-
qnire that we should presume that the
mayor IS motives were good, whether his
reasons were sound or not. In fact, we
know that the mayors reason for not
appointing Mr.. Bailey chairman of the
finance committee, was that he did not
endorse Mr.. Bailey's financial policy.
That being the case, what ought the
mayor to have done? Should he have
kept Bailey on the finance committee to
continue the same policy which the
mayor could not approve? That would
be surrender by the mayor of his own
policy, which of itself would prove him
unworthy Of the place. Then it the
mayor was right, Bailey must be wrong
in objecting to the rightful exercise of
his authority.
But let us consider the question in an
other light. 1t is the law and has been
the custom for a newly elected mayor to
appoint new committees at the
beginning of his administration
The old committees expire by
Limitation and it Is altogether
a matter of choice with the mayor wheth-
er the same persons will be appointed on
the same committees or not. 1t is often
impossible to do so, as old aldermen
are going out and new ones coming in.
Who ever heard of an alderman claiming
a vested right to place on any commit
tee after the election of a new mayor,
and took 1t as an affront If not placed |
there? Especially, who ever knew an
alderman before Bailey to take such a |
thing so much to heart that he resigned |
his place and then sought a reelection? |
Mr.. Bailey's conduct is the height Of |
presumption. He denies the mayor the |
right of choice. But what does Mr. |
Bailey expect to do if reelected viii |
he make war on the administration? |
viii he demand the craftsmanship |
of the finance committee as the |
price of his Endorsement by his |
ward? And if the mayor still sees it the |
same way, and reappoints him chairman /
of the sewer committee, will he accept |
it? Then why couldn't he have done
that at the start? Will he refuse that
Craftsmanship and CURLY tell the mayor
that he would rather be on the tail end
of the committee? And if the mayor is
still obdurate, will he resign again and
ask a new Endorsement by his ward?
That g logical. But if he would not re-
sign again for such cause, why do so at
the beginning? In either case, why the
expense and trouble of this election for
alderman? The whole thing is ludicrous,
foolish, presumptuous, unnecessary and
deserves the condemnation of the voters.
A VOTER.