Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-10-11

state that in my Judgment he is ia poin
Of integrity, ability and patriotism
THE PEER OF ANY MAN
that ever was or aspired TO be governor
OF Texas. Governor Ross, who was hi
neighbor for twenty-five. years hai
vouched in the strongest language he
could command for his patriotism, in
tegrity and Democracy, and all th'
abuse Of partisan newspapers, and ire
sponslblc Stump orators does mo-
weigh feathers weight in the mind
| OF any unpreiudiced man against the
simple, earnest deliberate statement oil
| the lsnightly and chivalric Ross.
Judge Clark has served the people Of
Texas In exalted positions OF honor and
trust and no man can truthfnlly say he
did not discharge every official duty
with consummate ability and unouos'
tionable integrity.
His superior has never filled the pc.
sition OF attorney general As judge
he left In the reports OF this state unde.
niable evidence that in point OF ability
he is the peer Of any fudge that ever
delivered an opinion from the bench Of
this state.
Thirty years ago when a mere youth,
with his three brothers who fell at his
side, he barred his young breast to the
battles storm, and shed his blood on
Virginia sacred soil in behalf of holy
cause, and no unpreiudiced mnn be-
lieyes he has suddenly been changed
into traitor" "corruptionlst7 and
a "conspirator" simply because In the
exercise Of his rights o. freeman he
sees 90 70 oppose Governor Hogg and
! his policies. No honest, fair-minded
man will make such q charge; no truth
full man viii so assert, and only those
who are willing 10 resort 10 falsehood
and SANDER TO sustain failing cause,
will assail a gentleman who as a Demo-
crat has always been found faithful to
his party and its candidates, regardless
Of success or failure In his own aspirin
lions.
Finding then, Judge Clark 10 be at
the least peer OF Gov. Hogg in ability,
character and patriotism, come next
to the proceedings OF
THE HOUSTON CONVENTION.
doubt not that of tine delegates
present when the convention assembled
a majority were favorable TO Gov.
Hogg, but judging from the votes cast
for the Third party candidate for con-
gFess in the special election In tho
Ninth district, l sincerely doubt
whether Gov. Hogg had majority Of
the true, genuine, bona fide Democrats
OF Texas, and feel absolutely sure he
did not have the necessary two-thirds,
and that number by the recognized law
OF the party was necessary TO his nom
nation.
IL was, however, in my Judgment, too
late when the convention met to raise
the question OF the genuineness Of any
mans democracy, that question II not
settled In the primaries was no longer
debatable, and every delegate holding
credentials was entitled 10 his scat.
believe further that the candidate
nominated for temporary chairman,
who was favorable TO Gov. Hogg and
who was most excellent man, should
have been chosen, but this fact did not
affect the rights OF the Clark men TO q
fair hearing.
The proceedings OF the convention
are familiar TO you and to the general
public and need not DO recited by me.
II is said by those favorable 70 Gov.
Hogg that the action Of Mr.. Finley,
who, as chairman Of the state executive
committee, was presiding over the pro-
ceedings OF the preliminary proceed
ings OF the convention, was correct.
/ do not profess TO be an expert in
parliamentary law and proceedings,
but think | know as much alb ut the
question as do many of those who have
rushed into print with their opinions
concerning II.
IL is said there was no house to APP
| peal TO, nor any organized body to de-
termine Mr.. Matloek's appeal.
1t seems to me, and | believe it will
80 appear as matter Of common sense
and common Justice to every unpreiu.
diced man, that II there was any house
or assembly or convention there by
which action could be taken ON any
motion, and thereby organize or do any
business, or elect a temporary chair
man in any way, IL could likewise en-
tertain any appeal from the action OF
| the chair.
II this were not true, Mr.. Finley could
have ignored the motion 10 elect any
chairman at ALL and have ignored any
appeal that might have beon takon
from such action, and have named a
chairman to suit himself or have de-
clarcd himself chairman.
care not how much technical and
| special pleading may be resorted TO-,
men OF fair mind9 and common sense
| VIII believe Mr.. Finley had no right to
| ignorge Mr.. Matlooks appeal, because
as an impartial man, acting for the
| whole body OF the Democrats Of Texas,
he was not presumed TO know whose
candidacy Mr.. Matlock favored, and
even II he knew, Mr. Matlock being n
gentleman OF well known high charac.
ter and a duly accredited delegate.
the chair had no right TO presume any.
thing against him, and Mr.. MatlOGk
had the right to have his appeal en-
tertained.
am not making any assault on Mr..
| FINLEY nor do as many have done. ques-
tlon the integrity Of his purpose. know
him well as gentleman Of ability and
have for him the klndest personal feel
ingi but the question Is not one OF mo-
tive or intention, but Is whether Mr..
Finley's action was correct and right.
10 put the matter clearly, let us ro-
verse the situation. Suppose the Chair
man In Mr.. Finley's place had
been @ Clark man and had
denied a Hogg man hearing,
and had ignored his oft repeated 40.
peal, do you believe Gov. Hogg's friends
would or ought 10 have submitted TO
such injustice9
1t Is not however, according to my
view, a matter OF serious moment,
whether Judge Shepherd or Mr.. Lane
was chairman. and Il is not material 10
DO considered, further than il affects