The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-01-01

NJ any>oses Ut ne paypne1e q to1e1esi
- euozyaed otasuuk wtS6sR tss$fvo "
$cussitosional rsovisoa. q 4 IS
wcs~t tas bs<a e4sd 4 ~ psstnaaent
school fund y u ! Iarxs ussesurs sppllc-
abs 70 ths University and Agricultural
and Mechau3sua creleeS fun1s Taey afs
blufls pure suxa stnple, ana HEX much os
producing enythtug l!lse 4 tuf0cleucy OF
revenue to run those Institutions. Tho
sistefco from che eenerai revenue both
would have to cloae. That being the case
there Is no xood rftason why they should
not be maintSine'f by direct taxation. A
two and half mill tax would produce
enoush TO sustain them handsomely. be-
sides anordfnE annple revenue for tho
needs OF the Sam Houston and Prairie
View normal schools. They are practically
supported by direct taxation anyway, and
the people might As we'll known exactly
what they are ccating them.
= ~
| ConstitsItlonai onovlsicn Tor ths future
management Of the State penitentiaries
has become en- absolote necessity. The
lsnse system. which. owing 10 the lack Of
prison and State farm room. has boon
adopted, u an outrage upon civilization
and : source Of humIliatiou to prison ofn-
cisls. But thefc u no way out OF Il. Il u
desirable that the convtcts be q least
self suststning and empgoymeut on The
STATES account cSn rot be procured Tor
thcm under existing conditiou. Given
sufnciencv Of sugar ami other lands tho
penitentiary management could easily cub
tivate them at . rood profit with convict
aaDeT. incldsntaiiy ~ far as possible. con-
nniug the output OF such chops a. It may
nnd des rable to operate TO products needed
IN State eleenrcsynary institutions, thus
minimizing the competition with free
dsbcr. but to accomplish all this money
- needed and the best wkv to obtain Il
without cost to the taxpayer Is to give con-
stittHtonal warrant for tho loaning OF per-
manent educational funds at a fair rate
OF interest under State guarantee for the
carrying out OF SUCH a project. Therc IL nm
possible chance for Loss OF principal or
defalcation In interest payments.
| ~
I'm his message to the Twcnty-fifth leg
!slat,ire Governor Cnlbcrson called atten-
tton to weak place In the constitution IN
language which Is as pertinent today as
when first used. He said:
Tor moro than a quarter Of n century
IL was The law of this State. ann,,unced
repeatedly by the highest courts that the
testimony Of a deceased witness at former
trial of "a criminal cha we Is admissible in
eviaence at a Subsequent trial OF the same
casss ana may be proven by another per-
son who heard tie testimony. This salu-
tary doctrine. thoroughly accepted and nee
essary to the suppression of crime. was
recently denied by majority OF the judges
OF the court OF criminal appeals upon
grounds heretofore urged without s,lccess.
In the case Of CAne they held that examIn-
ing TRIAL evidence. taken before y magis-
trate, where the defendant was present
and had an opportunity TO cross examine
the witness. Il not deposition in coI,fenl-
piation OF article 814 of the code OF Grim
inal procedure. which allows the deposition
to be read in evidence when the witness
has since died or removed from or is out
OF the State and for other reasons, and
that II 1t were deposition within the
meaning OF that article II could not be
read because the law Is void ms contraven-
ing section 10 OF ihe bin Of rights declaring
THAT an accused shall be confronted with
the witnesses against him. In substance
and effect 1t Is held that article St4 10
unconstitutional and void. This decision
seriously impairs the right OF the State
to perpetuate testimony. It lays dam
gerols premium upon absconding witnesses
and wicked destruction OF testimony Wide
reaching and evolutionary, Dit Affects VI
tally the administration OF public justice
and eince It can not be remedied by iegls-
lation Its operation should be promptly
arrested by an amendment Of the consti-
tuition
Another matter requiring attention from
constitutional convention relates 10 the
consolidation Of railroad property. The
constitution provides Cart. X. Sec. 81 that
no railroad or other corporation, or the
lessees. purchasers or managers OF any
railroad corporation shall consoiidate the
stock, property or franchises OF such cor
pOratlon with, or lease or purchase tho
workssor franchises Of. or in any way con-
tlto1. any railroad corporation owning or
having under itsR control parallel or
composing line. nor shall any officer OF
such railroad corporation act ls an officer
of any other railroad corporation owning
or having control OF a parallel or COM
peting line; and Cart. Y. Sec. 81 no railroad
company organized under the laws of this
State Shall consolidate by private or ju-
dlcial sale or otherwise with any railroad
company organized under the laws of any
other State or OF the United States. Those
provisions are substantially reproduced In
statutes and railroad CORPORATION or other
corporation as used In the acts, Is de- |
fined TO be any corporation. company, per- |
son or association OF persons who own or
control. manage or operate any line OF
railroad In this State. It will be noticed
that the first Of these provisions has ref
erence only to lines that are competing or
parallel. The second denounces consOlida-
ton OF railroad companies OF this State
with such companies organized In other
States or under the laws OF tbs United
States 1t does not reach consolidation
with other than railroad corpointlons. In
evasion OF the frst provision che act OF
the Twenty second legis oture Authorizing
the formation OF corporations Tor the pur-
pose Of acquiring railway property or prop
critics by special act authorized to be SOLD
and conveyed has been invoked and y Is
asserted with good show OF truth that
at least one big radlroad corporation in the
State Is unconstitWionally In control OF
several competing lines With regard
10 the second provision. it's spirit y not