The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-09-10
A DLSPASTONI7E REVIEW,

A DISPASTONl7E REVIEW
Cool, sober second thought is always
best i'm affairs personal and state
BUSINESS men accustomed tOmove only
after the most painstaking care ana
upon maturest deliberation, some
times, yes often, make grievous errors
of Judgment If this is so with sucll
men when the whole responsibility Is
on one alone. is not the chance Tor
error greatly increased when the re-
sponsibility is spread over number
of men? 1t may be answered that
when there are many to review WORK
that the chance of detecting error Is
to that extent increased; but is this
really so? Is it not the nature OF men
to shirk work, to throw it on some one
else if possible? A divided RESPONSE
bility is always thus found to DE an
excnse for error. This being
true of men as confederated together,
in business life it is equally true, ana
more so, of men when assembled III
large bodies to attend to state affairs.
A legislative ball is the place for the
most open and full discussion OF all
matters coming up for consideration,
but is it not fact capable Of substan-
tiation by legislators themselves as
well as by onlookers, that the legisla-
ture furnishes the most illustrious eX-
ample of divided responsibility?
Bills are introduced and referred TO
appropriate committees, and for the
most part, the majority report OF such
committee is adopted, with little or
no objection, after casual explanation
bv the father of the bill or the chair
man of the committee. 1t is the rule,
for the most part, for bills to go
through on their captions; for bills
get many vote just on the say SO OF
aneXt desk mate that the bill means
so and so. And the Legislature is
hardly to be blamed for this. Consider
for a moment the vast amount OF work
that is submitted to every legisla-
ature and say if it is possible for every
legislator to give the closest attention
to every bill. The fault is in attempt
ing to do too much in too short a time.
But we only hear wild cry in oppo-
sition when some specially unfortu-
nate law has been passed, as in the
case of the alien land law. Then, in
the revolt from the full consequences
of the law, it is we hear the legisla-
ture abused. But then it is too late,
aAd the only thing is to devise some
way to counterfeit the i'll effects of the
law by an early amendment of it. So
now with this alien land law. 1t
matters not who are responsible for
it's enactment or how it became law,
it is on the statute books and the
question is what about it? It's spirit
is all right, but what of its specific
terms and its direct effects? Is it
framed as our lawmakers really de-
signed it to be? DO they not see
wherein it could be changed to the
benefit of the state and still retain
those features in it that are essentially
excellent? Can it not be so modified
as to protect Texas from any and all
possibility of foreign land ownership
and still afford her citizens Il chance
to go into the money markets of the
whole world to get money as cheap as
possible? If this can be done in the
name of all that is for the best interest
of our people should it not be done
and at once? 1t is no reflection on
those who framed the law or passed it
that it has not been found to answer
fully to all they expected Of it and as
they expected it. 1t was passed as
an experiment, it should be amended
as it now has been found best. This
is written with no regard to the law
except to it's betterment. 1t can be
improved and Texas benefited TO
that extent; in the name of all Texas
let it be so improved at the earliest
nnuant