The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1892-10-06

For the support anu mdlubouduCo
the commission as 1t is. (Second,
For law that would restrict the ficti
tious issuance of railroad bonds anC
stocks. (Third) For a law that would
prevent the extravaganza, unnecessary
issuance of municipal bonds. Fourth
For law that would prevent perpe
tuities and check land monopolies
Fifth For the recovery of all lands
illegally obtained and held by corpor
ations, guaranteeing the settling II
coed faith due protection.
MY OPPONENT IN THE CAMPAIGN
at first took issue with me on all these
questions, but finally argued himself
into the belief that the commission
was all right, and declared at Bell
Vile that If he was elected governor
he would veto any bill that should at.
tempt to change it until it had full
and q fair trial. So, when we went
before the Houston convention, the
remaining four issues seemed to be- the
only one not settled between us. AS
Democrats contesting for the nomina'
ton, we discussed these questions
throughout the state-he for ABOUT
five months, and 1 for nearly three
months. The people fairly under
stood them; and, as arbiters through
their convention at Houston, they
settled them in my favor. The ques-
ton naturally arises then, why did
Judge Clark and his followers bolt?
He saws in his speech at Dallas on the
9th of this month, that it was not on
account of any ruling of the chairman,
but that it was because of difference
of opinion on fundamental questions;
that it was an "irrepressible conflict"
If this was so he has not made known
to us any new issues, and must there-
fore content himself with the charge
of characterization and with the
of the side of the cor
porations against the establishment OF
the principles we discussed in the last
campaign into law through the instru-
mentality of a Democratic admins
tration.
Before entering upon the dis
cussion of other questions l
wish to review the record of
Judge Clark, his public political ut
terances and those of his new asso-
ciates who. have joined him in the
fight to establish by the record that
this is conspiracy to overthrow the
Democratic party because it has I'M
espoused the side OF the
people for the legitimate control and
Ilst regulation of the corporations.
This being the main object Of the pres
emit enemies of Democracy, it is we'll
to prove by the record that Judge
Clark has shown by his intolerance
and his efforts as q leader in the party,
that for some reason or other, he has
desired to decapitate the prominent
men minimize its forces and inculcate
false doctrines into those who blindly
adhere to him.
He is a man of an eventtul career for
)ne who has nearly always held an Of
ice, but though several times a candi-
late, was never elected to one. Like
jhe historic parrot he may have talked
100 much, but he has talked. His
irst prominence as q political leader
,r warwick was in the prohibition
campaign in 1887. After it was over
le talked; yes, unhinged his jaw and
urned his tongue'loose at both ends.
Speaking of the opposition leaders
through an interview published in
he Galveston News, August 8, 1887,
le said:
"They (Prohibitionists) entered the
Democratic household and sat at the
Democratic table with treason in
heir hearts and bearing malice
.gainst all Democrats who refused to
low the knee to their idol. 1 am in
avor of tolerance for the rank and file
# the Democrats who thoughtlessly
ollowed off his craze, and will oppose
heir prescription. For the fanatlcal
eaders have no truce"
Here is plainly expressed desire
N the part of the Judge, as the leader
# the Democratic party, to read out"
! large class of men who differed with
lin on an amendment to the consti-
ution. In the same interview he was
10 straight-laced in his orthodox
news, that he said with reference to
icket scratchers:
"a Democrat who scratches the
lominee of his party is no Democrats
md it is useless to treat with him as
! Democrat"
Now read this expression in connec-
ion with his confession as to his own
,ote on the constitutional amendment
for railway commission,
unlimited three years later, in a
'peech at Denton, Dec. 10, 1891:
81 put my head on a block and
wrote my execution like man, stand
ng up, swearing 1 would not vote for
{ 1.-THE commission amendment).
could not have voted for it if my life
had depended on it,"
Mark you, three years before he de-
nounced men who failed to vote the
ticket as unworthy the name of
Democrats, and yet here he volunta-
lily tells the people that he put his
head on a block and wrote his execu-
ion like man, standing up swearing
ne would not vote for an amendment
submitted by Democratic legisla-
lure and espoused by the Democratic
party through it's platform. What did
ne mean by saying that he had writ
ten his own execution? Perhaps he
the rule he wished to
apply to Democrats, and in the smit-
ing of his own conscience felt keenly
that he had read himself out of his
own party. This view is strengthened
when we recollect that on the prohi.
bition amendment the party had not
given any expression, while on the