Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-02-28

| public patronage than the sovereign of tbs
| British empire. This same idea OF exec
utive patronageipermeated our constitution
antecedent to the one under which we ara
now living, and the governor was invested
with such power and such influence as en-,
abled him at his pleasure to precipitats
upon the people
AN oLIeARcHY
! instead of q republic. In 1875, however
1 the people of Texas determined to changs
| their organic law, and their Representa-.
! tives in convention being duly advised bv
! their constituents, proceeded 70 frame a
constitution more in accordance with Dem
/ ocratic principles. Wherever practicable
| the governor was stripped of power and
| such power was returned TO the people
and this constitutes one of the chief excel.
lencies of the instrument.
1t was hardly to be supposed that in any
| important addition to the ofice-holding ma
chinery OF our government Democratic
| administration would be found TO antagonize
| this principle so thoroughly asserted by the
| trainers of our present constitution and so
/ dear to the hearts Of the people. The dis
cussion as to commission made before tina
| people two years ago, did not involve any
debate as TO how the commissioners should
be selected. 1t was assumed that under
Democratic institutions, there could be M
question but that
THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES
should select those to whom they proposed
to entrust the administration of such in
portant functions. And yet when the leg
islature met and proceeded to carry out the
will of the people in framing q law which
should protect them from railroad injustice
and at the same time protect the railroads
from injustice at their hands. which was
the popular desire, it was aScertained that
the executive whom the people them
selves had selected had determined in
his own mind that he should ba
a ~ 81
commissioners and of substantially direct
ing their action, for such is the condition Of
the law to-day. 1t was urged upon the floor
of the two houses by Democrats of unqueS-
toned principle and of thorough devotion
to Democratic teachings that II was Pc
culiarly appropriate and fit that these com
missioners, vested as they were neces-
sarily under the terms of the bill
with arbitrary and absolute power over
great investments, should receive their
commission from the people themselves and
be responsible only to the people for their
discharge of what ought to have been So
cred trust. But their arguments were NET
with
THE IPsR DIxIT
of those who stood near the governor that
he would not tolerate this Democratic
method of government, and if bill was
passed giving to the people their inaliena-
BILE rights to select their own agents for
the administration of their gov.
eminent, his excellency would
veto the bill. This had its
effect, of course, and after a struggle for
the supremacy of Democratic principles the
advocates of those principles yielded their
judgment and surrendered to the executive
q right which belonged to the people. The
significance of the movement was no,
detected by the masses. 1t was not
seen by them that this was
long step in the direction of abso-
NJ !
nor realize that this meant that the
governor should be supreme in the admins.
tration of the commission law, and that his
word or his nod should prevail thereafter
in the operation of this board. l do not
charge that the governor has interfered
with the administration of the law by the
commission. Possibly he has not, and for
the sake of argument l am willing to admit
that he has not uttered one word or pro-
mulgated one suggestion to the commits
sioners since he approved the bill. But
that is not the question. The question IS
one of power in the executive, of violation
of Democratic principles, of
INVESTING ONE MAN
by law with autocracy, which is inconsist.
emit in any shape with genuine republican
liberty. The motive was artfully con-
concealed in this, as it was concealed in the
attempt to deprive the railroads Of their
power to go to the courts for relief. There
was no mention made in the law that the
governor should have power to re-
move the commissioners, and it was even
urged that this power not having been
granted to the governor, was incapable OF
exercise by him. This specious plea could
not impose upon any one familiar with the
laws of this state, for turning to the Re-
vised Statutes, there stands a law (which
authorizes the governor TO remove any ap-
pointive officer in the administration at his
own will. refer to article 1887 of the Re.
vised Statutes. And 500 when the work
was done and finished, we found this great
investment in
THE STATE MANACLED
so as to prevent them from going to the
courts and praying as an humble suppliant
for Justice, and the. administration of its
affairs placed entirely in the hands of three
men who were selected under the law be-
cause they had no interest whatever in the
investment and were liable to removal al
any time at the will of the governor wht
appointed them without check or hindrance
If this is not absoluteism, wha
would you call it, fellow citizensl II this
is not step in advance of anything under
taken by Edmond j. Davis in his career il
in this state from 1870 to 1874, what would
you call it, If this style Of law making IS
not absolutely inconsistent and incompati-
bic with liberty and with Democracy, then,
after long years of faithful and patient
study, have failed to grasp the meaning
OF elLner term How
INDUSTRIOUS THE PROPOSITION
that the people are not capable of selecting
these commissioners? Why, they selected
the governor himself. the man who, under
this law, is to sit clothed with arbitrary
and irresponsible power, charged with the
appointment and removal of the commits
sioners. For many years they have Sc
lected the judges of your highest court. and
who can say they have made mistakes
in this selection9 This was a popular
movement; it was response to the cry Of
the people for relief; it came from the peO-
pie themselves in response to their demands
uttered in overwhelming tones. How ap
propriate it was then, that the people them.
selves having demanded this agency should
at least have a voice IN its selection. And
how peculiarly appropriate it would havs
been to have devolved upon the people them
selves the responsibilities and all the re-
sponsibilities of the law. And yet
THEY WERE DENIED
this poor privilege by the will of the exec
utive when they were clamoring for tina
right to elect by direct vote their United
States senators, and even the prest
dent of the United States. The timG
has come when they intend to assert this
right. The day for beseeching the execu-
tive for the privilege of exercising this
constitutional right has passed He and
his friends were implored to give the right
to the people, and it was refused Il
was conceded 10 him and to his friends thai