Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-03-06
HON. TOM BROWN.
The Sage of Grayson on the
Political Situation.
FOR HoGG AND COMMISSION.
What Has HoEg Done That He Should
Not Have Done. and What Has ae
Left Undone That Should
Have Been Done?

Hon. T. J. Brown of Sherman, who as
| chairman of the committee on internal i'm
| provements OF the house had more to do
/ than any other man with the framing of
the present commission law. has submitted
| the following views on current state issues
in response to inquiries by THE GAZETTE:
SHERMAN, Tex. March 4, 1892
Editor Gazette.
In reply to your questions propounded in
yours OF the the Goth ultimo, 1 answer as
follows:
l. Who is your preference for governor7
Answer, James S. Hogg.
2. What will be the real issues of the
eampaignl A. The real issue of this cam
paign is the same as that of 1890, and again
before the legislature in 1891, which Isl the
regulation Of railroad corporations by a
commission. Governor Hogg was the can
didate in 1880 in favor of an effective and
efficient law, creating a commission for the
regulation of railroads, and especially TO
regulate the charges made by them for
transportation within the limits of the
state. Judge Clark opposed the adoption
OF the amendment to the constitution aud
opposed the nomination of Governor Hogg
Although Judge Cook was the candidate,
Clark was the power Of that canvass. The
Democratic party nominated and elected
Governor Hogg on that issue, and at the
same time elected a legislature to enact
such law. Governor Hogg was inaug
urated and became the representative of
the people as the chief executive OF the
state. When the legislature assembled
Clark repaired to Austin, established his
headquarters, summoned his adjutants,
lieutenants, couriers and messengers, and
joined issue with Governor Hogg before
the legislature on this question. Judge
Clark represented all the railroads except
two and Governor Hogg represented the
people in conjunction with the two branches
of the legislature. Judge Clark made war
upon the same provisions Of the commits
sion bill which he now attacks. He lost in
that contest. The commission bill was
passed, and he appeals to the people as
candidate for governor. 1 would not say
that he now represents the railroads, but
he does represent the same principles and
interests that he represented as the head
and front and the power Of the railroad
lobby.
l have stated that Judge Clark repre-
scented the railroads, and in proof of it 1
state that he addressed to me as chairman
of the committee on internal improvements
two or more letters, signing himself George
Clark, representing all the railroads except
two. He was present at the capitol during
the greater part of the session. Men who
were known to be misrepresentation of the
railroads visited different houses of the |
legislature, and were in communication |
with him. In the caucus of the friends of |
the commission bill representative pro- |
duced thirteen objections to the commission |
bill, which he stated publicly had been pre-
pared by an eminent railOad lawyer present |
in the city, and all understood it to be |
George Clark. In his speech at Weather |
ford he says that he had prevented in
large measure the railroads from entering |
into litigation with the state over the pro-
visions of the commission bill. These are
facts. They are proof beyond a reasonable |
doubt that Judge Clark represented the
railroads at Austin during the session of
the Tween ty-second legislature; that his re-
lations to them are such that he has their
entire confidence, and that he is making
this canvass to carry out his promise to
them that the people would reverse their
decision of 1890
8. Dc you favor the retention of the ap-
pointive feature in the railway commits
sion2 A. 1 do. l advocated the appoint
ment feature in 1890. Never heard any one
advocate an elective commission during the
canvass. 1t was charged IN that canvass
that Governor Hogg favored commission
to be appointed by the governor, and that
he had said he would veto any bill, provid-
ing for an election. Judge Clark, Judge
Cook and the host Of opponents, charged
that the commission would be appointed by
the governor and none of them ever ad-
|
the people. The contest over this question
began many years ago, numberless bills
have been introduced and no bill providing
for the election of commission by the. eco
pie was ever introduced in the Legislature
The issue on the election feature was made
for the purpose of dividing the legislature
and defeating the law as had been done be-
fore. The friends of the commission bill
assembled in caucus, organized themselves
to meet the organized lobby and agreed
among themselves that they would abide by
the decision of the majority upon this ques-
ton. If the ma GRITTY favored the election
Of the Commissioners all would support it
with that feature, if the majority should
favor the appointing of the commissioners
all would support it. The majority of the
caucus decided for appointment, and
against the methods which had been
adopted to create divisions among them.
Failing to defeat the bill by this method.
Judgei Clark now attempts to divide the
Democracy of Texas rs he tried to divide
the legislature upon the same question.
The people have right to determine in
what manner the commissioners shall be
selected. l favor their appointment, be-
cause: l. The history of all railroad COM
missions in the United States shows that
hose which are appointed are the most
efficient in the management of these corpo-
,ations. 2. Because in selecting commits
sioners by popular vote they would be
nominated in q Democratic convention, in
which the railroads and all opponents could
combine upon nominations for these offices,
lrade out on everything else and secure
men that might not work in the interest of
he people. The delegates to these conven-
ions with their personal friends as candi-
lates for other offices, could be more easily
influenced than the governor ana senate of
he state. When the convention adjourned
here would be nobody responsible to the
people. When elected, the commissioners
'ould not be removed. 1t would take away
Is power and strength. If appointed by
he governor, he would be responsible di-
'ectly, and would have the power to re-
move.
1t is as much the exercise of sovereign
'owsr by the people, to select by their gov
rnor and senators as by direct vote. The
,eople have the right now in the election of
heir. members of the legislature to change
his law, so as to elect if they choose
Judge Clarke cannot make this an issue,
or the people can have an elective commits
ion ii they elect Hogg governor just the
anne IS if they elect Clark. But there is
he material difference, the next commits
ion must be appointed by the governor, !
ecause the law cannot be changed before