Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-03-10
HON. TOM BROWN.
The Sage of Grayson on the
Political Situation.
FOR HOGG AND COMMISSION.
What Has Hogg Done That He Should
Not Have Done, and What Has He
Left Undone That Should
Have Been Done?

Hon. 7. ]. Brown of Sherman, who as
chairman of the committee on internal i'm
provemeuts 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 29th ultimo, 1 answer as
follows:
l. Who is your preference for governor9
Answer, James S. HOgg.
q 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.is the
regulation of railroad corporations by a
commission. Governor Hogg was the can
didate in 1890 in favor of an effective and
efficient law, creating 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 and
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 q law. Governor Rogg 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
in n fba fxuN hlcp abec
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. l 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.
1 have stated that Judge Clark repre-
scented the railroads, and in proof OF 1t l
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 the representatives of the
railroads visited different houses of the
legislature, and were in communication
the commission bill a 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 Twenty-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.
3. Do you favor the retention of the ap-
pointive feature in the railway commits
sion? A. l 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, proyid-
ing for an election. Judge Clark, Judge
that the commission would be appointed by
the governor and none of them ever ad-
vocated the election OF commissioners by
the people. The contest over this question
began many years ago, numberless bills
have been introduced and no bill providing
for the election of a commission by, the peo-
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- |
tion. If the ma ority 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 |
against the methods which had been |
adopted to create divisions among them
Failing 70 defeat the bin by this method. |