The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-10-02

ana was never thought OF by the present
gsneywtion until antiquarian pcpulists, In
their wild desire to eriticise something. re-.
waved an Issue uAa. was disposed Of
twensy-shree years ago and disapproved
polcy wtaiah the people inaugurated in
1854 and, usfder changed conditions, Ter
minated in 1881. eight years before poru-
Acan was heard OF. We have been led to
believe that populis,s were extremely, even
dangerously. progressive, but their ar
ralgnment OF the democratic party vn the
land question causes US to conclude that,
70 their large ana varied assortment OF
political promises. they are about 10 add
certain antideluvisn "Reminiscences. Enough
has been shown to convince the public thai
the popullst srraignment OF the democracy
on this question Is grossly inaccurate and
direct pcrversion q the facts
The ninth count OF the popullst arraiyn
! mcnt is as follows: Pledged so reduce Of
feal fees aud Salaries 1t enacted a law that
many OF It's own partisans VIII not defend"
In this our populist friends err most grew
ously. The fee bill passed by the twenty
fifth legislature was Endorsed by the demo-
cratic State convention recently held at
Galveston. and the party which enacted this
measure can certainly be depcniei on TO
/ further perfect II. Legislation redueing the
fees OF othcc will always encounter opposi.
tlon. The democrats of the Twenty ffth
| legt lature IN considering this matter were
confronted by strong oihclal LOBBY. The
disposition on the part OF many was to de-
| feat all legislation on the fee question aud
flihustering was resorted 10 by u minority
OF the democratic members OF the house o,
representatives, assisted by several OF the
ropulist members. On seven different oc-
casions the majority OF the populst MEM
bsrs OF the house. who were present. voted
with the flltausters against cxcusing less
than four absent members, thereby pre-
Na it,cr ka veil nra Inn ~ ha o.
III. j.. Reg. SEES, a6th Leg. 1921 lo9t.
| 1896. 1885, 1929, 1902 and 1861 Indeed,
| when one representative, who left the house
In violation OF the rules and ''hid out
under the direction OF the anti-feo bill lob
byists for the purpose OF defeating fec bill
| legislation, was the only unexcused alb
sentce, the majority OF the populst mem
bers OF the house who were present Voted
against excusing him, thereby preventing
action on the pending fee bin. But when
this representative was suspended and
vote WIS finally reached on the fee bill.
these same populist members, who previous
ly had tried 70 prevent its consideration.
changed their colors and went on record In
favor OF the bill-a record, unequaaled for
political insincerity and perfdy. Governor
Cuberson has recently stated that the
Twenty-fifth legislature passed ''compre-
hensiye bill fixing and reducing the fees OF
district and county Officers, whieh must
challenge public favor. THE BILL In its geE-
eral operation, Affects sixty three counties
--,those voting over S000-but In come re-
spects 1t operates upon ALL With refer
ence to ftigants, those having business 10
the courts the reduction Of fees Is not
horizontal, and many are left unchanged
only those regarded as excessive having
| been reduced. The reduction of the fees
| of sherifls and clerks of 1he distriot aud
| county courts paid by litigan,s viii prob
ably average 20 per cent. Conservative
| estimates place the saving to counties Ia
| the limitation feature of the bill at }i0, 900
| and ON collection OF taxes at $4,000 an
| nually. In fees paid by the State, the re-
| duction annually. II Is estimated, viii be
| $4,000 in collection OF taxes, $4,000 by re-
stricting the issuance OF subpoenas. $4,000
cost OF attached witnesses, $4,000 limiting
| attachment OF witnesses before grand
| turies. and $4,000 in fees paid sherIffs. at
| torneys, constablcs AMI district clerks In
| felony cases, aggregating $4,000 annually.
| Besides this, the fees Of assessors We're re-
duced. and the payment by the State and
the county for assessment equalized'
The popnlists in their tenth arraignment
OF alleged democratic errors assert that the
expenditures OF the government, but flbus-
tered against an appropriation bill that
would have saved to the taxpayers half a
| milihon dollars" Democratic economy laa
been heretofore discussed The bill which
they refer 10 and int SO Is tho Burney
| (populisO bill, which waz offered In the
| regular session as an amendment to the
appropriation bill then pending, and ruled
| out OF order because 1t WAS not offered IN
conformity with parliamentary rules, from
| which ruling the author OF the amendment
did not appeal. The amendment was then
| introduced as q bill by Mr. Burney In the
| special session and a substitute was Bubse-
| Oh bv I'm In nof,1-
mittee. The bill was not "hlibustered
| against" in any sense of the word, and the
| house did not pass 1t because the democracy
was unwilling to assume the responsibility
OF such measure.
To illustrate: The Burnoy (populist) bill.
which has been indirectly Endorsed by the
State populist convention. proposed to APP
propriate $50 for the support OF the Con-
| federate Home. The democrats appropri-
ated $S2.l05 for that purpose, which VIII
only be sufficient To comfortably sustain
that institution under the most economical
management. The Burney bill made no
provision to refund Messrs. Bacon and
Graves the sum Of $l19l20, which they
deposited in the State treasury In 1911 Tor
land which the supreme court subsequently
held could not be conveyed 10 them the
Burney bill made no adequate provision Tor
the support OF tho judiciary department or
the State government II II had been passed
by the Twenty fifth legislature there would
be ut this time deficiency OF az least
100000 in the said department of tho
state. aud the courts. where the peoples
rights are adjudicated, would have been
paralyzed. The Burney bill proposed no
adequate appropriation for the University
OF Texas. the medical branch. the Sam
Houston normal, and the Agricultural and
Mechanical college. This lis not surprising
In view OF the Intense hostility manifested
towards these institutions by tho delegates
to tho last State popullst convention.
The Burney bill proposed, without excep-
ton. sweeping reductions In the appropria-
lions to the white educational institutions
and heavy increase In the appropriation
for the Prairie View normal for colored
youths. This was an insincere bid for the
negro VOTE but viii avail the popullSts
little. The negroes OF Texas ere shrewi
enough to know that present popullst op-
position TO the white higher educational in
situations would. in the event OF popnlist
suocess. be followed by an intense opposi-
tion 10 the negro higher educational in
situations. For these and other reasons the
said bill was not passed by the Twenty
fifth Legislature and II can be safely stated
| that Ire men who wrote the DODulBf plat