The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1897-05-27
MIR. DREW BUSHES TO THE DE.
TENSE.


must forever b. treasure secretly
locked up in Mr.. Drew's breast. How
ever, that is Of little moment Mr.. Drew
being a member of the legislature, his
article is admitted to our columns and
mus, go for what ii is worth.
After graciously admitting the right of
a newspaper to criticise the official acts of
even n governor, Mr.. Drew, most unfor-
tunately, kills all the force Of his bcauti-
full magnanimity by suggesting that such
criticism is more likely to be Selfish
than just. Were all public officials
elected by the people and sworn to just
and impartial conduct" noted for always
bearing in mind and observing such
osths of office, possibly the people and
the press would have less reason 80 com
plain of long drawn out, but abOrtve, SEES
sions Of the legislature and Of politics
binding to justice and impartality. But
while things are as they are, the beam
must la pluckcd from the eye of those
who object 10 criticism rather than the
mote from those who criticise.
After quoting from The Statesman's
editorial on the governors veto of the ap-
preparation bill. Mr. Drew favors us at
length on what he believes about the
magnanimity of those to whom the state
is indebted. In the name of all credi-
tors Of the state and right-thnking peo-
pie everywhere, we would like to inquire
what this has to do with the case? How
could the zeal of all these people in the
interest of the state have any effect upon
an unjust action by the governor? Or
did the governor inquire if they would
object TO being further "stOOd off, until
he could carry out his political ends ?
Such begging of the question is puerle,
equally regardless of the fling as TO the
administration not pleasing The States
man as of The Statesmans not pleasing
MIR. Drew.
AS to the intimation that The States
man opposed the governors veto because
we opposed the fee bill and fellow ser
wants bill, we will say it is absolutely
gratuitous. The writer of the editorial
did not know the call included the fellow
servants bill until he read it as published
the morning the editorial appeared in
type. And so far as the fee bill is con-
ccrncd we would say that no fee bill has
as yet been introduced in the lcgisla-
ture. There have been several salary
bills thrust upon the legislature, but as
these were all simply revenue measures
and in no way relieved the public of any
fees to this time paid in all litigation,
The Statesman has opposed them as not
going to the root of the trouble and as
being demagogic. And Mr.. Drew can
get what satisfaction he can out of this
explanation.
Mr.. Drew himself admits that the fee
hill legislation was intended to "promote
the revenues" when he declares the gov
rnOr could not have pruned the appro.
priation bill instead of vetoing it. But
he then proceeds to strangely contradict
himself; for, after telling how he could
have cut this, that and the other item
''for the various institutions" he intro
iiuces this innocent little parenthcsis,
where the chief complaint is.' Com
plant by whom, the people? We have
not heard it. BY the governor? We
have not heard it. but rather we hear
him clamoring alone against the abuse
of the fee system, laying all his stress
upon the need of 'fee" bill. Com
plant by Mr.. Drew? No; for he, too,
wants this fee bill, the panacea for all
Ills. And this position is further proven
by his last paragraph. This being, then,
admitted that the people, the governor
and Mr.. Drew are satisfied with the
amounts given the various institutions
md the departments, will not Mr.. Drew
1t last admit that The Statesman was
right when il said the governor could
have pruned the appropriation bill by
'utting out certain items? How about il
{ he had cut out all appropriations for
he judiciary? Mr.. Drew, would not
hat have come pretty near getting that
ee bill matter before the legislature
'SuiH' N'uil III not nave uOHe t0lS anu
made one or two other unimportant cuts,
lone justice to the institutions and EN-
'loyes of the state and also given you a |
nance and your brother members at
heir ease to fix up about the fee bill. |
which alone affects the judiciary? Don't
nswcr in a hurry, but take four or FIVE |
lays to prepare your crusher. as you did |
With the current missive. AS the merits |
4 salary bill are not at issue at this |
lme, the last part of the letter is not up |
or discussion, but we suppose was
dded TO give the letter length. But SO
ar as the pertinent part of the letter is
oncerned, if Mr.. Drew has proven any
hing to his own satisfaction, we opine it
aust be that Culberson is a disinterested
atriot while the members of the legis-
lture were most parsimonious in draw
~ their mileage and per diem. while the
Employees of the state were doing the
oble thing of showing most disintcr-
sted spirit in waiting patiently for their
ny, while the destiny of the state was
cling so beautifully settled.