THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN THE GENERAL LIBRARIES LIMITED CIRCULATION This Item is Due on the Latest Date Stamped DUE RETURNED THE ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNOR JOHN IRELAND, 1883-1887 .this is ah original manuscript IT MAY NOT BE COPIED WITHOUT THE AUTHOR’S PERMISSION Approved: Approved: Dean b? ¥j4e THE ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNOR JOHN IRELAND, 1883-1887 THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS By Maggie Ruhamah (Rule) Smith, B.A* (Fort Worth, Texas) Austin, Texas August, 1934 .370555 PREFACE In the preparation of this study I have endeavored to make a candid examination of the major problems of the administration of Governor John Ireland and to set forth my findings on those issues. Some of the minor problems of the Ireland era have not been dealt with for the reason that their consideration would too great ly extend the length of this paper. The fact that none of Ireland’s correspondence was avialable has constituted a handicap. Also his speeches and gubernatorial messages are brief and few in number. In addition to his messages, the chief sources for this thesis project have been administrative reports, laws, legislative journals, newspapers, magazines, and the opinions as voiced by his contempo raries. To Professor R. N. Richardson and to Professor W. P. Webb, directors and counselors in this work, I wish to express my appreciation for the guidance and suggestions so kindly given. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. Biographical Sketch of John Ireland 1 1. Ireland’s Early Life in Kentucky 1 2. His Public Career in Texas 2 3. Ireland’s Death and Character 6 11. The Issues Before the People in 1882 1. Condition of Texas in 1882 9 2. Political Issues in 1882 ......... 9 3. State Parties in 1882. 10 4. The Candidacy of George Washington Jones . 14 5. Leadership in the Democratic Party .... 16 6. The Galveston Convention, 1882 ...... 19 a. Judge Ireland the Democratic Nominee. • 19 b. The Platform of the Democratic Party, 1382. 20 7. Ireland’s Political Views as Expressed in His Campaign . . 22 8. Ireland’s Election • ••••••••••• 26 111. Ireland’s Policies as Set Forth in His Messages. 29 1. Sponsored Changes in the System of Public Education. 29 Chapter Page 2. Endorsed Increase in Public School Funds by Constitutional Amendment. ....... 30 3. Did Not Favor the University . 31 4. Position on the Administration of the Public Domain ....... 32 5. Position on Financial Measures ...... 34 6. Position on Prison System and Criminal Law--Suggested Reforms 35 7. Railroad Commission Recommended 37 8. Attitude of the Press Toward the Governor’s Policies ... ..... 38 IV• The Administration of the Public Domain . . . 41 1. Origin of the Public Domain 41 2. Extent of the Public Domain. . 42 3. Administration of the Public Domain from 1874 to 1883 43 4. 'The Results of Unwise Legislation of 1879 and 1881 47 a. Land Speculation 47 b. County Seat Rings . 48 5. Suspension of Laws of 1879 and 1881. . . . 50 6. Eighteenth Legislature and the Public Domain ...... . 51 a. Difficulty in Legislating on the Problem . . . . 51 Chapter Page b. Creation of the State Land Board. ... 52 c. Legislation on the Sale and Lease of Public Lands 52 7• Purpose of the Land Law of 1883. 54 8. Operations of the Land Board 55 9. Land Legislation of the Nineteenth Legislature. ... ..... 58 10. Veto of the Land Act by Governor Ireland • 60 11. Policies of the State Land Board 63 12. Criticism of the Land Board. ....... 64 V. The Fence Cutting War . . 66 1. Conditions leading to the Conflict . . . . 66 a. Land Speculation. 66 b. Cattle Boom ...... 68 c. Introduction of Barbed Wire and the Fencing of the Ranges ......... 71 d. Demands of the ’’Free Grass” Men .... 77 e. The Westward Advance of the Farmer. • • 78 f. Inadequate Laws dealing with the Stock Problem ........ ....... • 79 g. Unemployment of the Cowboys and Cattle Rustling 80 2. Extent of Fence Cutting. ......... 82 3. Character of the Violence, 83 Chapter Page 4. Difficulty Experienced in Trying to Suppress the Movement 84 5. Public Sentiment and the Cutters 86 6. Work of the Adjutant-General 88 7. Criticism of Governor Ireland Because of His Failure to Stop Crime Wave 90 8. Calling Special Session of the Eighteenth Legislature 90 9. Work of the Legislature . 93 a. Law against Fence Cutting ....... 95 b. Executive Enforcement of the Law. ... 96 c. Decline of Fence Cutting . 98 10, Results of Fence Cutting 99 VI. Attempt at Railroad Regulation. . 100 1. Need for Railroad Regulation 100 2. Railroad Development in Texas. 100 3. Financial Difficulties of the Railroads. • 102 4. Physical Defects of the Railways ..... 105 5. Railroad Violations of the Constitution and Laws in Matters of Discrimination and Combination. ...... . 105 6. Attempts at Regulation by the Eighteenth Legislature 110 a. Ireland’s Recommendations for a Com- mission . . . . ...... 110 Chapter Page b. Failure of the Commission Bill 115 c. Creation of State Engineer. ... ... 116 d. Law to Prevent Discrimination ..... 118 7• Failure of State Engineer to Regulate Railroads. 118 8. Attempts of Nineteenth Legislature to Regulate Railroads . 119 9. Laws Dealing with Railroads. ....... 121 10. Railroad Combinations and Poolings .... 122 11. Effects of the Long and Short Haul Clause of the Law of 1883 124 VII. Changes in the State System of Public Schools and the Beginning of The University of Texas. 126 1. Public Education in 1883 126 2. The Foundation of the Public School System in Texas ........ 126 a. Creation of Public School Fund in 1839. 126 b. Provision for Public Schools by the Constitution of 1845 127 c. Attempts to Organize a System in 1854 . 127 d. Effects of the Civil War upon the School System for Texas ........ 128 e. The Radical School System of 1870 and 1871 130 Page Chapter 3. The Constitution of 1876 and Public Education. ................ 134 a. Establishment of the Community System . 135 4. The School Crisis in 1880. 136 a. Efforts of the Seventeenth Legislature to Amend the School Laws. 137 b. Failure to Amend the School Laws. . . . 137 5. Public Sentiment and Public Schools. . . . 138 6. The School Crisis in 1882. ........ 138 7. Governor Ireland and the Public Schools. . 139 8. Constitutional Amendment for Public Schools, 1883 . . 139 9. The School Law of 1884 .......... 140 10. Importance of the Office of State Super- intendent 144 11. The Unreliability of School Reports. . . • 145 12. The Improvements in the Schools. ..... 146 13. Opening of The University of Texas .... 149 14. Foundation Laid for the University .... 149 15. The Eighteenth Legislature and the Univer sity 152 16. The Enemies of the University. ...... 156 a* Public Indifference .......... 156 b. Opposition of Private Schools . • • • • 157 Page Chapter c. Conflict with the Agricultural and Mechanical College. .... 158 17. The Nineteenth Legislature and the University 159 18. Governor Ireland and the University. . . . 161 VIII. The Administration of the Prison System . . • 163 1. The Significance of the Prison Problem . . 163 2. The Prison Lease System. 163 3. The Failure of the Lease System 164 4. The Eighteenth Legislature and the Lease System 167 a. Revocation of the Lease . 168 b. Establishment of the Contract Lease System 169 5. The Failure of the Contract Lease System . 170 6. The Opening of the Iron Industry at Rusk • 171 7• The failure of the First Year’s Operation of Rusk ............. 172 8. Failure of Government Management of the Prisons. 172 9. The Nineteenth Legislature and the Prison System . 173 a. Legislative Investigation of Prisons. • 174 Chapter Page b. Results of Investigations by the Nineteenth Legislature. • • 174 c. Legislative Appropriations for the Prisons 177 d. Legislative Changes in the Penitentiary Board 177 10. Appointment of a Nev/ Penitentiary Board. . 178 11. Government Operation of Rusk . 180 12. The Beginning of the Share Farm System . • 182 13. The Beginning of the Prison Farms by Purchase of Harlem Farm 183 14. Attempts to Establish a House of Correction for Youthful Criminals 184 15. Governor Ireland’s Clemency Policy .... 184 16. Results of Prison Legislation 185 Conclusion 187 Bibliography. . ......... 190 CHAPTER I BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JOHN IRELAND THE ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNOR JOHN IRELAND, 1883 TO 1887 John Ireland, Governor of Texas from 1883 to 1887, was born in Hart County, Kentucky, January 1, 1827. His parents, Patrick and Rachel Ireland, were very poor, but held the respect and esteem of their neighbors. John, who was one of fourteen children, lost his mother at the age of twelve. His opportunities in early life were extremely limited. He managed by great labor and industry to secure an elementary education in an ’’old field school.” In 1847, he was appointed deputy sheriff of his native county in Kentucky. In order that he might hold this office his disabilities as a minor were removed by special act of the Kentucky Legislature. About a year later he was elected constable, which office he held for three years. 1 The legal business of these offices directed his attention to the study of law, and with the aid of a little money, saved while in office, he began to read law in the office of Robert D. Murray and Henry C. Woods at Munfordsville, Kentucky, in 1851, and in 1852 he was granted a Kentucky license to practice law. In the same year he came to Texas. He reached San Antonio in December, 1852, but soon removed to Seguin in Guadalupe County, which place remained his home for the rest of his life. He entered the practice of law in Seguin and by close application and industry won for himself a competency and established himself as a lawyer and jurist. In 1858, Ireland was elected mayor of Seguin. In 1861, he was sent as a delegate to the secession convention and voted for secession. He entered the Civil War as a private, but rose rapidly to the position of captain, major, and lieutenant colonel. He was assigned to duty on the Texas coast, and for that reason saw little active fighting. He was appointed by President Davis to preside over a court of criminal jurisdiction that was created by the Confederate congress, which court tried all cases both civil and military. 2 At the close of the Civil War, he resumed the practice of law. He was elected a member of the Constitutional Convention which assembled in conformity with President Andrew Johnson’s reconstruction policy of 1866. At this convention he represented the counties of Travis, Williamson, Burnet, Blanco, Hays, Guadalupe, Caldwell, and Bastrop.s At the election ordered by that convention, he was chosen district judge of the Travis and Seguin district. He was removed from that office in 1867 by General W. H. Griffin with the rest of the Throckmorton government, "as an obstruction to reconstruction. After this removal from office he again resumed his private law practice, but did not remain in it long. In 1872 he was elected a member of the House in the Thirteenth Legislature. In 1874 he was sent to the Senate of the Fourteenth Legislature. In both bodies, he was distinguished by his vigorous opposition to the constitutional amendments allowing the Legislature to give public lands to the railroads. He was opposed to all State subsidies to railroads. His opposition to these grants was so emphatic and determined that it won for him the sobriquet of "Ox Cart John." He defeated a bill which proposed to grant to the International and Great Northern $6,000,000 payable with interest in thirty years, making a total of $15,000,000. He not only defeated the bill, but later saw his ideas embodied in the Constitution. His fight against monopoly legislation won him the distinction of being greatly devoted to the interests of the people. He was chosen president of the Senate for one week in 1874. At that time an armed conflict between the supporters of Governor Richard Coke and E. J. Davis seemed unavoidable. Ireland’s influence was largely responsible for the reestablishment of the constitutional government and the peaceful inauguration of Governor Coke and the democratic administration.® In 1875 Ireland was appointed to the supreme bench but was retired the following year, when the newly adopted constitution reduced the court from five to three members. Though his service as associate justice of the Supreme Court was short, yet it was sufficient to win the admiration and esteem of the State bar for the legal accuracy of his opinions and for his conscientious devotion to the duties of the court. Later, in the same year he was retired from the court, he received a flattering vote for the United States Senate, though he was defeated. In 1878 he was a candidate for Congress from his district. His opponent was Gustave Schleicher who defeated him after a most stubborn contest. In 1880, he was elected a delegate-at~large to the Cincinnati Convention which nominated Winfield Scott Hancock, the Democratic candidate for President. 7 In 1882, Judge Ireland was unanimously chosen by the Democratic party in State Convention as its nominee for the office of Governor, and was elected by a majority of about 45,000 votes. In 1884, he was renominated by acclamation and without opposition. He was elected by a majority of over 100,000 votes. At the close of his second term as Governor, he became a candidate for the United States Senate. His rivals were Judge John H. Reagan, at that time a member of Congress, and State Senator A. W. Terrell, later minister to Turkey. The contest was spirited. The balloting continued for more than a week when Judge Reagan was elected. At one period of the contest, Governor Ireland received more votes than either of his opponents and it was thought that he could have won if he had participated more actively in the contest. But that Ireland refused to do, declaring that the office Q was one of too much dignity to be scrambled for. With the expiration of his term as Governor and his defeat for the United States Senate, he returned to his home and to his business in Seguin where he practiced law until his death. Ireland had the appearance of being a stern, cold, dispassionate kind of man who was not moved by or responsive to the gentle and tenderer influences which so forcefully affect many men. But in reality he was fond of pleasure and was a congenial companion. To be in his company, during his periods of relaxation, was considered by his friends as a real pleasure. There was no pretense or affectation about him, neither was he the hail-fellow, hand-shaking, backslapping type of politician. That sort of thing seems to 9 have had no place in his makeup. Ireland died in San Antonio March 15, 1896, after a brief illness. He was stricken with neuralgia of the heart while in route to that city from his home on March 2. His condition was serious from the first and his death was not unexpected. Governor Ireland was twice married. He was the father of five daughters, one daughter born to the first marriage and four to the second marriage. His second wife was Miss Anna Penn, who survived him. Ireland was a man of humble origin. His start in life was made amidst circumstances that would have overwhelmed most people, but by hard labor, untiring effort, and ability he achieved success. He arose to distinction as a lawyer, and won both the esteem and admiration of his associates at the bar. He was recognized by his contemporaries as a man who was candid, fair, and honest in his dealings with his fellow men. As a lawyer he pursued sedulously the interests of his clients. As a judge he was diligent in his search for the true principles of justice. His opinion in the case of Lewis v. Aylott settled the principle in Texas jurisprudence that real estate cannot pass by a nuncupative or verbal As chief executive of the State he was conscientious in his efforts to perform the duties of his office, and to harmonize the varied interests and conflicting factions within the State. From his childhood, Ireland was taught in the school of self-reliance and independence* He kept his own council and pandered to none. He was dignified and reserved in his manner toward others, and to many he appeared stern and cold, yet he was kind and generous in his disposition and a true friend to those who had his respect and confidence. The State Supreme Court In Memoriam touching the death of the Honorable John Ireland, said of him: One of the brightest features of his professional life was his courtesy, kindness and helpfulness to young lawyers. He was their patron and friend. None asked for his advice where it was not given. He never forgot the adversities, hardships and difficulties through which he had passed, and his heart opened spontaneously and responsively toward all those in the thorny path which he had traveled. 11 Ireland was Governor of Texas at a very important period of its history. It was a transitional period, a time when the State was developing its resources, building its railroads, developing its agriculture, and laying the foundation for its public institutions. Ireland faced many serious problems as Governor, most of which he solved with credit to himself and to the State. News, March 16, 1896. Sketch of Career of John Ireland. 2 Dallas News, March 16, 1896. 5 San Antonio Express, March 16, 1896. 4 L. E. Daniell, Personnel of the Texas State Government, 54. 5 Dallas News, March 16, 1896. 6 Daniell, Personnel of the Texas State Government, 56* 7 San Antonio Express, March 16, 1896. Q San Antonio Express, March 16, 1896• 9 Norman G. Kittrell, Governors Who Have Been and other Public Men of Texas, 90* 10 Texas Reports, LX, 202. 11 Texas Reports, Vol. 89, 1895-1896, p. VII. CHAPTER II THE ISSUES BEFORE THE PEOPLE IN 1882 The election of 1882 was one of unusual interest for the people of Texas. The State, under the leadership of Governor Oran M. Roberts, 1879 to 1883, was rapidly recovering from the financial distress of the Davis regime. In 1879, when Roberts was inaugurated, Texas owed a debt of about five and a half million dollars and had an empty treasury. Through Roberts’s policy of economy, one and a half million dollars of that debt had been paid, and there was money enough in the treasury to pay another million. Taxes had been reduced from fifty cents to thirty cents on the one hundred dollar valuation. The development of the State had been rapid; railroads had increased; immigrants had flowed into all parts of the State; new counties had been organized; new towns and villages had sprung up;- a new State house had been provided for and was under construction; educational progress had been made; normal schools and summer normal institutes had been established for the training of teachers; the State Agricultural and Mechanical College had been revolutionized and the State University had been founded. The issues before the people in 1882 were much the same as they had been since the Democratic party had returned to power in 1874. The rapid extension of railroads and the unfair discrimination of freight rates made the question of State regulation of the roads paramount. There were still some 30,000,000 acres of school lands within the public domain, and their disposition was a question in which all the people were interested. The proper administration of the State’s finances and the continued reduction of taxes was an ever-recurring problem. The development of an educational system was barely instituted and was a question of great moment. The building of the State capitol was only well begun and its successful construction demanded a continuation of wise and proper guidance. The rapid progress and development of the State involved the question of the proper encouragement of immigration. A readjustment of the judiciary was a well recognized As there were few changes in the major issues before the people from 1878 to 1882, likewise there were few party changes from the two preceding election years. The parties in existence in 1878 were the parties functioning in 1882. Some of these parties had arisen out of national problems rather than State issues, but in Texas they formed the opposi tion to the Democratic party. The State Grange, a farmers’ organization, came into being in 1873. It disclaimed all political intentions, but in 1878, 1880, and 1882 it set forth a brief platform of party principles. The Grangers endorsed, in 1882, the passing of laws that would regulate freight rates on railroads; that would establish a more effective school system, with the extension of the school term to eight months; and that would more effectively regulate the disposition of the public school lands. 2 The Greenback party, organized in 1878, met in State convention in Fort Worth, June 29 and 30, 1882, and adopted a platform, but did not nominate a State ticket* Its platform was a repudiation of the Democratic administration. The Greenbacks accused the Democrats of violating the trust for which they were put in power—that of righting the wrongs inflicted upon the State by the Republican party. They accused the administration of doubling the State debt; of robbing the public school fund; of creating land monopolies; of selling State bonds at eighty-five cents and buying 3 them back at one dollar and forty centsof refusing to regulate railroads; of allowing a large surplus to pile up in the treasurey; and of refusing to make the proper appropriation for schools. They accused the administration of issuing "land certificates to railroads, irrigation companies, and pretended canal companies to the amount of many million acres in excess of the public domain.’ 1 The Greenbackers made a strong appeal to Democrats and Republicans to abandon the old parties and by means of a new organization establish an administration that would correct those abuses. The Republican party, which held its first State convention in Texas in 1867, elected E. J. Davis Governor in 1869, had by 1882 lost much of its earlier strength. The party met in convention at Austin, August 23 and 24 with Davis as chairman. Four hundred delegates were present, half of them colored men. The party did not feel strong enough to put a ticket in the field, but decided to support acceptable independent candidates. The Republicans adopted a platform which favored an amendment to the Constitution directing the levying and collecting of a special school tax sufficient to maintain a ten-months’ school in all communities of sufficient population; which favored the sale of school and University lands to bona fide settlers only and in tracts of 640 acres unless it was purely grazing land; which did not favor the further extension of the University endowment until a thorough system of public schools should be perfected. They condemned the existing system of taxation of occupations and endorsed the raising of revenue only by ad valorem tax on property. They heartily endorsed the fostering of immigration. They prided themselves on the fact that the five thousand miles of railroads in the State was the result of friendly legislation during the Republican administration. 5 In addition to the above mentioned party groups existing in Texas in 1882, there was still another group who called themselves Independents* They were led, in the main, by disgruntled politicians, who stood for no definite party principles. Senator Richard Coke declared that the Independents were not pledged to anything but to occupy the 870555 offices if they got them; that they were a set of selfconstituted, self-appointed office seekers, who were independent of every principle that makes a party great; that they were independent of truth, honor and fidelity to the interests of the people. 6 The object of the Independents as expressed by themselves was to save the State from the 7 blight of "Bourbonism." The Independents in 1882, were under the leadership of George Washington Jones of Bastrop, popularly known as Wash Jones. He was a lawyer of ability, a forceful orator, and a very aggressive man. He had, however, the reputation of instability in politics. He had been a Whig, a Knownothing, a Democrat, and a Greenbacker, and now was the leader of the Independent movement. He was accused by the Democrats of being the candidate of all the opposing cliques who combined against the Democratic party, the leader of an army of "political Janissaries," bent only on the spoils of office. Wash Jones had been Lieutenant Governor of Texas during the Throckmorton Administration in 1866. But in 1878 and 1880 he was elected to Congress on the Greenback Ticket. He announced his candidacy for Governor on the Independent Ticket and made his opening speech in Galveston, August 19, 1882. Wash Jones vehemently denounced nominating conventions. A town constable, he declared, could not be elected any more without a convention. "The Independent," according to Jones, was a man who thought and acted without the intervention of Q caucuses or nominating conventions. The most serious indictment brought against the administration by the Independents was the condemnation of its public school policy. The Independents accused the "Bourbon” Democrats of reducing the school funds, and of trying to get rid of the public schools. Jones favored the establishment of a ten months, state-supported school in every community. He also made a loud cry for immigration within the State. He opposed the sale of public lands in large bodies, and approved their sale only in small tracts to actual settlers. It was a fact that the opposition rallied to Wash Jones’s standard —Grangers, Greenbacks, and Republicans all being too weak to put out a state ticket. Even the Republican party, the strongest of the group, in its resolutions set forth by the Falls County Convention, admitted its weakened condition, saying: ”We are thoroughly convinced we can not elect a Republican state ticket, nor can the other parties opposing Bourbon Democracy.” The party then urged the importance of putting forward a good independent ticket, the candidates to be selected alike from the Republican, 9 Greenback and Independent ranks. The leaders of the Democratic party, early in the year 1882, were sharply divided over the selection of a suitable candidate for Governor* The general prosperity of the State, coupled with the honest, intelligent, and economical administration of affairs under Governor Roberts, brought a general endorsement of him from the people for a third term. As early as January and February, requests by letter and by telegram for Roberts’s candidacy began to flow into the leading newspapers throughout the State. A telegram to the Galveston News from Sulphur Springs is indicative of the feelings of the people, namely: "The people in this county generally desire to see Governor Roberts become a candidate for reelection. Many up here think that Roberts is the greatest man since the days of The people were unable to see how the State, in any way, could be benefitted by a change of executives. The general opinion was, that if Roberts would consent to a renomination he would be reelected by a larger majority than he had won in either preceding election. The Austin Statesman, the official organ of the Democratic party, gave an expression concerning Robertses renomlnatlon: Governor Roberts is prominently spoken of for renomination. It is contended, that the masses will not be content with any other nomination than his. The Statesman is satisfied that nine tenths of the Democrats of the state do want him for a third term. The Statesman is free to say that his reelection would be one of the wisest conclusions that could possibly be reached.l2 Roberts, however, would not consent to a third term. Through the columns of the Statesman, he announced that he would not stand for renomination. When the party leaders realized that Roberts was no longer available, they began to cast about for a suitable candidate. Many of them hoped to secure a man who would continue the Roberts policies. There were a number of men who aspired to the office, men who could fill the chair with credit to the State, men who were jealous of the principles of the party. Such men as Judge T. J. Devine, A. W. Terrell, John Hancock, General L. S. Ross, Judge John W. Stayton, T. W. Throckmorton, and Judge John L. Henry were mentioned. For several weeks before the convention, the majority of the party leaders, however, had settled upon Judge John Ireland of Seguin. It will be recalled that Ireland had been an associate justice in the State Supreme Court under the Democratic administration in 1875, and was associated with Roberts on the bench until the reorganization of the court in 1876. He had also been a member of the Legislature, had made the race for Congress, and had aspirations for the United States Senate. He was considered a safe and conservative leader. Almost without exception, the newspapers of the State endorsed him. The Clarksville Standard said: We have no hesitancy in saying that he is entirely acceptable to the editor of this paper, who knows him personally, and knows that he is not an office seeker, has none of the trickery of the professional politician, is a man of the people, a good lawyer, a practical business man, who has made his way from the ground up by force of genuine good qualities.l3 In spite of Roberts’ announcements to the contrary, there were those who felt that he and he only could carry out the principles and policies to which the party was committed* The party leaders were loathe to give him up* They continued to advocate a third term and to keep it prominently before the people. The Democratic Convention met in Galveston, July 18 to 21, 1882. The delegation was split into two well-organized groups, into Roberts’s and Ireland’s supporters. Roberts’ friends were eager to obtain his nomination by acclamation. They believed such a move would force him, through a sense of duty, to accept the nomination. A number of caucuses were held, telegrams were exchanged, doubts increased; but determination grew stronger, until, on the second day of the convention, a definite and final refusal by Roberts forced his supporters to give up the struggle in his behalf. When it was definitely known that his refusal was a final one, his friends gave their support to Ireland, who was nominated by acclamation on the first ballot, July 19, 1882. Judge Ireland was nominated by the Honorable Seth Shepherd of Galveston, who reviewed and commended his work as a member of the House of Representatives, as a member of the Senate, and as a judge on the Supreme Bench. After a brief acceptance speech by Judge Ireland, the convention nominated Marion Martin for the office of Lieutenant Governor. The Democratic platform adopted at Galveston was a brief one and half of it was devoted to national issues. The most salient State problems were briefly outlined. The party proposed to make further endowment to the University and its branches by the lands set aside for the public debt or the sale of the same, but in no case did they favor taking any part of the common school lands or funds for that purpose. The party favored the fullest education of the masses, both white and colored, in separate common schools, advanced education for the youth of the State in higher schools, and State normal schools for the instruction of teachers. They endorsed the submission of a constitutional amendment authorising the levying and collection of a special school tax separate and apart from the general tax. The party favored the conservation and protection of the public school lands of the State from further waste and sacrifice. They favored such control of railroads as would protect the rights of the people and at the same time not injure the corporations. They also promised a continuation of strict economic policy in 15 the administration of all State affairs. While the Democratic papers endorsed the platform and declared it to be in accordance with the spirit and demands of the times, the opposition criticized it severely, claiming that Democratic pledges were promises to be violated. Senator W. T. Homan, a prominent leader of the opposition, declared the party was endorsing two issues that had been voted down by the preceding Legislature. One was the proposed amendment for a separate school tax and the other was the proposed setting aside of additional lands for the University out of the domain set apart for the extinguishment of the public debt.^* 3 The Roberts supporters had hoped to have his policies carried on by the next administration. But the nomination of Ireland blasted their hope-s. Ireland’s nomination proved. in addition, that there was growing up within the party some opposition to the administration policies. Governor Roberts favored the continued rapid sale of public lands; Ireland proposed their reservation. Roberts’s policy of purchasing State bonds at 140 was condemned by Ireland as a needless extravagance and he proposed to stop their purchase. Ireland proposed a more effective enforcement of the criminal laws and the placing of criminals within the penitentiary walls, where they could be taught trades, rather than on farms. He condemned Roberts’s pardoning policy, claiming that such an extensive use of the pardoning power was equal to an annulment of the laws. He was indifferent concerning the extension and further development of the University. Roberts had worked hard to get the institution going and was anxious to extend its endowment and its usefulness. Ireland could not see sufficient funds in sight for its support and did not favor diminishing the public free school fund in order to build it. 17 Ireland was very guarded in expressing his views concerning the State regulation of railroads, a most vital problem of the day. As a member of the Legislature, he had been a bitter enemy of railroad interests and was considered a strong supporter of a vigorous system of State regulation, therefore, it was feared that he might succeed in ruining 1 8 the railroad interests of the State. 0 Ireland’s opposition to railroads was so pronounced that he was considered by many to be really unprogressive. Roberts had favored State regulation of railroads to obviate the encroachment of Federal control. Ireland, in his first public speech as a candidate delivered at Gonzales, August 11, 1882, merely mentioned the railroad question. He admitted that the whole question of railroad regulation was a delicate one and promised just and fair legislation for the roads. His remarks implied that the railroads would have nothing to fear from his administration. In a later speech, delivered at Dallas, October 18, he maintained that the railroads should be required to stop discriminations of rates against persons and places; that railroads be required to run their trains on a regular time scheldule; but that they should not be crippled in their 20 development by too much regulation. The advancement of the public school system of the State was a question of much concern to everybody. The Houston Post declared: All commercial, moral and substantial prosperity hinges upon the plans of education organized in the State. There is a great awakening on this point, and no politician, statesman or patriot can afford to disregard Judge Ireland, in his Gonzales speech of August 10, took a position on the school question that he was never quite able to overcome, and which kept him busy explaining for the rest of the campaign. In that speech he accused the opposition of levying a school tax to be spent on such "hangers on as superintendents, supervisors, etc." as was the case under the "Davis regime.” He further said that personally he favored denominational schools having their pro rata of the free school The press made much of his remarks on State support of denominational schools, and of his criticism of superintendents and supervisors* The papers declared that he was positively unfriendly toward a more progressive system of schools with superintendents, longer terms, special privilege of local taxation, and better pay for teachers.in a speech made at Austin, August 20, he attempted to clear up his position on the school question. He asserted that the awkward school laws made it difficult to determine what were and what were not sectarian schools. He maintained that certain sectarian schools were getting State aid while others were not, and that the whole system pa should be revised. Later in his Dallas speech, he again reviewed the school question and announced himself in hearty accord with the constitutional amendment as proposed by the platform, and with the general extension and progress of the 25 public school system. He, however, never quite overcame the prejudice aroused by his Gonzales speech. After an active and vigorous State canvass which lasted during the months of September and October, the Democratic State ticket was elected November 7, 1882. The returns showed that Ireland ran behind the rest of the ticket. He received 20,000 less votes than were cast for Governor Roberts in 1880, while the rest of the ticket remained about the same. The official count gave Ireland 150,809 votes. Colonel Jones received 102,501 votes, giving Ireland a majority of 48,309 votes. The vote cast for Marion Martin, Ireland’s running mate for Lieutenant Governor, was 171,277, that of E. W. Morton, Jones’s mate, was 58,504. Since Ireland was the unanimous choice of the Galveston Convention it was expected that he would poll a heavy vote. His small majority was accounted for on the ground that the old-time and devoted admirers and adherents of Governor Roberts were weak in their support of him; that the Bexar district was weak in its support of him because of his unpopularity that had grown out of an earlier congressional contest in which he had been engaged; and that other sections were weak in their support of him because of a general belief that he was not a genuinely progressive man. There was no doubt that the popular belief concerning his views and feelings on the school question had much to do with the absence of enthusiasm for 26 his The vote showed that he was accepted, but under protest; that he was tolerated but not received cordially; and that his ideas and theories as enunciated in his speeches were not popular. Jones’s strength within the State was much greater than was at first anticipated. He carried the railroad vote in spite of Ireland’s favorable promises to the railroads. The Galveston News made the following explanation of that situation: Judge Ireland, with a conservative democratic legislature, would be expected to make progress in railroad regulation, while Mr. Jones, with a legislature in opposition to his political affiliations, could not be expected, even if his program were practical, to reach a harmonious understanding which would be necessary in forming a railroad regulation policy. Therefore, according to the News, the railroad interests would prefer Jones to Ireland even though Ireland was not in favor of much railroad regulation. When the election was over, it was a question in the mind of many as to whether or not Ireland would be able to carry out his program. It was predicted that the newly elected Governor might find himself embarrassed by a Senate devoted to the subject of the Roberts’s 29 program, and that certain desirable legislation on some of the vital problems of the day might be hampered. It was a question as to whether Ireland would be able to carry out his proposed land policy, for the protection and conservation of the public domain; whether he would be able to draw their support to his railroad policy; whether he would be able to win their approval of his proposed revision of the convict system; and whether he and they would be able to lay the foundation for an adequate school system. 1 Galveston Daily News, July 5, 1882. 2 E. W. Winkler (editor), Platforms of Political Parties in Texas, 212. 3 The Greenback party failed to take account of the fact that the state constitution prohibited state funds from being invested in anything except federal and state bonds. The economical administration of the state’s finances had raised state bonds from below to above par. In 1882 a hundred dollar state bond was selling for one hundred forty dollars. 4 Platforms of Political Parties in Texas, 207. 5 Platforms of Political Parties in Texas, 207. 6 Austin Statesman, October 26, 1882. 7 "Bourbon" was a term applied to the leading citizens of the South: the lawyers, physicians, teachers, clergymen, merchants, and farmers. They constituted the leaders of society. They were largely responsible for the recovery of the South from the tragedy of the Civil War. They were Democrats and were called "Bourbons" because they acted in opposition to the principles, policies, and methods of the Republican party. The "Bourbon" creed was said to be "the preservation of the status quo - no change - let well enough alone." The word "Bourbon" came to be a term of reproach and a weapon of burlesque, and was used with all the force which it could be made to carry. (Austin Statesman, January 29, 1882.) 8 Dallas Herald, September 28, 1882. 9 Galveston Daily News, August 15, 1882. 10 Galveston Daily News, February 1, 1982. 11 The Roberts’s Scrap Book, 1880 to 1895. 12 Austin Statesman, March 14, 1882# 13 Clarksville Standard, May 12, 1882. 14 Galveston Daily News, July 20, 1882. Convention Supplement. 15 Platforms of Political Parties in Texas, 209. 16 Galveston Dally News, August 6, 1882• 17 Dallas Herald, October 19, 1882. 18 Galveston Daily News, June 21, 1882. 19 Galveston Daily News, August 12, 1882. 20 Dallas Herald, October 19, 1882. 21 Waco Examiner, August 15, 1882. Quoted from the Houston Post. 22 Galveston Dally News, August 11, 1882. 23 Waco Examiner, August 15, 1882. Quoted from the Houston Post. 24 Austin Statesman, August 20, 1882. 25 Dallas Herald, October 19, 1882. 26 Dallas Herald, November 10, 1882. 27 Waco Examiner, November 11, 1882. 28 Galveston Daily News, November 15, 1882. 29 Galveston Daily News, November 22, 1882. CHAPTER III IRELAND’S POLICIES AS SET FORTH IN HIS MESSAGES John Ireland assumed the duties of the executive office on January 16, 1883. In his inaugural address before the Eighteenth Legislature, he set forth in brief terms his policies concerning the essential problems of the day. He had studied the policies of his predecessors and had his own determined views as to what was needed for the welfare of the body politic. The question of public school affairs, which had attracted so much attention in the preceding canvass, received his first consideration. In his message the Governor said: Prominent among the subjects that will challenge the attention of this administration are: The preservation of our common school fund, including the lands set apart for that purpose, and the improvement of our school system. It is known to the country that, prior to my nomination at Galveston, I severely criticized the practice of paying forty per cent premium for our bonds, and no amount of reasoning or financial skill can satisfy me that the practice is justifiable, either in retiring our bonded indebtedness, or as an investment for the school Since the constitution required the permanent school fund to be invested only in Federal or State bonds, the Governor proposed that that instrument be so amended as to offer some other method of investing the permanent fund. United States bonds were refunding at so low a rate that their bonds were not desirable for that purpose, and he expected the bonded indebtedness of the State to soon o disappear. - In order that the available school fund might be increased so as to meet more adequately the growing needs of the public schools, and to carry out the promises of the party platform, Ireland suggested a constitutional amendment that would permit the Legislature to levy and collect a school tax, without reference to the amount of the general revenue. The Constitution provided that one-fourth of the general revenue should constitute the available school fund, and as the tax had been reduced to thirty cents on the one hundred dollar valuation, only seven and one-half cents was available for schools, a sum wholly inadequate for the increased demands on the school system. The proposed amendment would permit the Legislature to levy a special school tax independent of the general In his message to the Legislature, January 29, Governor Ireland proposed a constitutional amendment which would enable local communities to tax themselves for the support of a local school system. He declared that the responsibility of levying, collecting, and disbursing taxes should be left as much as possible with the people, who, if they have the power to tax themselves and manage the funds thus raised, were apt to do it honestly and to their own liking The State University, which was in its infancy, got very little consideration from Governor Ireland in his message to the Eighteenth Legislature. This was probably due to the fact that Ireland, not being a college man, felt no especial need for institutions of higher learning. If he was not openly opposed to the University, he was, at least, very indifferent to its progress and future development. In his inaugural message he did not consider the needs of the institution of enough importance to be discussed under a separate heading. In connection with his discussion of the public schools, he said: ”The University was early contemplated by those who have gone before. No one questions the usefulness or propriety of such an institution, and we suppose a retrograde movement, with reference to it, is not contem- With this brief statement, which really promised nothing, he dismissed the whole question of the University and made no reference to it in any later message to the Eighteenth Legislature# The question of public lands was vitally bound up with that of the public schools. Thirty million acres of the public domain had already been set aside for the support of the schools, and still another million had been donated to the University to provide it with a permanent endowment. During Ireland’s campaign, much attention had been centered on the problem of how best to dispose of those lands so that the children of the State would receive the greatest good from them. Ireland, like many other leaders of his day, deplored the squandering of the vast public domain that was rapidly passing out of the control of the State. In his inaugural address, he stressed the fact that the public lands of Texas were exciting that energy and calling forth that spirit of gain that the gold fields of Australia and those a of California had done. He emphasized the fact that at the close of the Civil War, Texas still had under its control, after all headrights, donations, and bounties had been provided for, about one hundred twenty million acres of land. These lands then began to attract the attention of the capitalists, of the land hungry, and the greedy, and scheme after scheme was resorted to to get hold of them. The scramble went on at such a rapid rate that the Thirteenth Legislature, 1873, in order to save something for the future, passed a law setting aside one half of the existing public domain for the schools of the State. Of that vast domain, Ireland declared, only a remnant remained in The Governor submitted his program of relief from the squandering of those lands. He suggested that, since it was difficult to find safe and desirable investments for the proceeds of the lands, they should be placed on the market at long time credit, perhaps twenty years. He further suggested that a minimum price be fixed, below which the lands should not be sold; that they be sold to the highest bidder not later than six months after they were first open for bids; that an advance payment equal to the first year’s interest be required; and that the purchaser forfeit his land if he failed to meet any payment of either principal or interest as it came due. Such a policy, the Governor believed, would relieve the difficulties of investing the fund from the sale of the land, and yet would furnish an adequate available school fund. He proposed to fix a minimum price of two dollars per acre regardless of location or quality of land. He also recommended that all water fronts be protected, for should all water fronts and privileges be absorbed and much of the upland remain unsold, the government would realize very little from o the future sale of such lands. On the question of financing the government, the Governor proposed to continue his predecessor’s policies of economy. The general taxes, at the beginning of Ireland’s administration were lower than they had been since the period preceding the Civil War. The Treasury contained a half million dollars in surplus funds, and there was therefore no need for an increase in taxation. Ireland advocated a taxation rate barely sufficient to meet the needs of the government. He stressed the danger that might accrue to the State from too much occupation tax. The earlier idea, he maintained, had been to tax those occupations and pursuits that were to be discouraged, but the later policy was to raise money, often at the expense of the useful and 9 desirable occupations. While Ireland did not make any recommendation for further reduction of the ad valorem tax, he stressed the fact that no just power should take from the citizens of the State one mill that was not absolutely required to carry on the government in an economical He also called attention to the danger that might arise from a surplus. He believed that no greater temptation to extravagance, and even corruption, could exist than from such a treasury. As evidence of that he cited the squandering of the State ! s public lands. The Governor called the attention of the Legislature to the fact that the Texas prison system stood badly in need of reform. It was the practice of the time to send all offenders to the penitentiary, even boys of fifteen years of age were confined within its walls. He recommended a "house of correction" for such youthful criminals instead of the penitentiary. He doubted the wisdom of the existing practice of sending men to the penitentiary for very short periods of time, and of sending petty offenders there for punishment. Governor Ireland also presented the need of reorganizing the prison system. He advised that all subordinate officers be made subject to appointment and removal by the superintendent of penitentiaries instead of by the Governor. If the subordinates were made subject to the superintendent, that officer in turn, could be held accountable to the chief executive and thus provide a much more systematic and responsible The Governor submitted to the Legislature the need for the reorganization of the Penitentiary Board. The superintendent of prisons was a member of the Prison Board. It was suggested that the superintendent be left off the Board in order that that official would no longer be required to sit in judgment on his own work. Governor Ireland brought to the attention of the Legislature the prevailing laxity in the execution of the criminal laws. He noted how frequently the peace officers either absented themselves from the scene of action or willfully closed' their eyes to violations of the law. He urged the Legislature to pass a law that would place a heavy penalty upon the law enforcing officers for any such dereliction of duty. Concerning railroad regulation, Ireland was as careful and guarded in his inaugural address as he had been while a gubernatorial candidate. He reminded the Legislature that the regulation of the railways was a Constitutional requirement whose fulfillment was demanded by the people of Texas. He admitted that the regulation of the roads was not the work of an hour, but that the subject demanded careful and mature study. The railways, he declared, were the institutions of the State; their value and utility were not to be questioned; but their management had challenged the highest order of talent. Whatever was done concerning them, he hoped would be done in the spirit of equity and justice, and not 12 from the desire to injure the railroads. The establishment of a railroad commission for railroad regulation was already becoming a much discussed question. In his message to the Eighteenth Legislature, Governor Ireland endorsed the passage of a law that would create a commission to be composed of three persons, chosen in such manner as the Legislature might elect and subject to the regulations of that body. Experience had shown that some one was needed to force the railroads to perform their duties to the people. Many leaders of the State were strong in their endorsement of a commission. The preceding Legislature had voted down a measure providing for a commission. During the canvass, Ireland had been noncommittal as to any direct policy concerning railroad control, and this endorsement was his first public announcement of his views relating to a commission. The Governor aspired to be the chief magistrate of the people and not a mere politician in office. He contemplated no removals from office except where, he believed, the public service would be bettered. He proposed to multiply the machinery of government as little as possible, and to adhere to such a policy of simplicity and honesty as was 1 best befitting a government that belonged to the people. If the newspaper editorials are to be taken as indicative of the general acceptance of Ireland’s views and policies on State issues as set forth in his addresses to the Legislature, then they were, on the whole, favorably received by the people as well as by the special interests within the State. The Galveston Daily News especially endorsed the Governor’s policy concerning the conservation of the public school lands. It was the opinion of that paper that if the public domain was to be made available for use in public education the Legislature must make some disposition of it, that it was apparently the last chance of saving that remnant of the domain or of making it available for public education. There was no doubt that the Governor’s views on the land question were in accord with the sentiment that animated the majority of the legislators. On the railroad question, the friends of the railway corporations manifested satisfaction with the utterances of the new executive. Railroad officials observed that the expressions of the Governor would add much to the confidence of the railroad interests in Texas and that the future growth and development of railroads would not be hampered 1 5 by unwise legislation. The Governor’s position on the disposition of public school funds was in accord with the public interest and was generally approved. However, his proposed changes for local 16 school taxes and management were not so favorably endorsed. He was also censured for his lack of interest in the State University. It was felt that the University could do much to unify the sentiments of all sections of the State, that it was ”a public necessity” and was entitled to the whole hearted support of the government. l7 In the main, however, the Governor’s recommendations were reasonable and just and were favorably accepted* 1 Collections of the Archive and History Department of the State Library Executive Series. Coke to Ross, 1874-1891, p. 472. Edited by and for the Archive and History Department of the State Library 1916. Hereafter referred to as Texas Governors 1 Messages. 2 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 472. 3 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 472. 4 Ibid., 479. 5 Texas Governors* Messages, 472. 6 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 471. 7 Ibid., 473. 8 Texas Governors* Messages, 477. 9 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 473. 10 Ibid. 11 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 480. 12 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 474. 13 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 475. 14 Galveston Daily News, January 17, 1883. 15 Dallas Herald, January 19, 1883. 16 Fort Worth Gazette, January 31, 1883. 17 Dallas Herald, January 19, 1883. CHAPTER IV THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN Probably the most difficult and most important problem that faced Ireland as Governor was the administration of the State’s public lands. At the beginning of his term of office, Texas still had a public domain of more than thirty million acres of lands most of which had been appropriated to the public school fund, to the University of Texas, and to State eleemosynary institutions for the insane, the blind, the deaf, and the orphan As these lands were transferred from the State to private ownership, the money accruing from their sales went to make up a permanent fund for the support of each of these institutions. The first grant of public land to State institutions was made January 26, 1839, by the Third Congress of the Republic of Texas. The law provided that three leagues (13,227 acres) of land should be surveyed and set apart in each county for the purpose of establishing a primary school or academy for the said county. The laws also set apart fifty leagues (221,400 acres) of land for the establishment and endowment of two Colleges or Those lands were added to from time to time by legislatures and by constitutions until they constituted about thirty per cent of the total area of the State, comprising a total of 4 51,921,519 acres. The Constitution of 1876, in order to provide more fully for the children of the State, accepted all funds, lands, and other properties previously set apart or appropriated for the support of the public schools and declared that "all the alternate sections of land reserved by the State out of grants heretofore made or that may hereafter be made to railroads, or other corporations, of any nature whatsoever; one half of the public domain of the State; and all sums of money that come to the State from any portion of the same, shall consti-5 tute a perpetual school fund.” These lands, estimated at 50,000 sections, never formed a composite whole, but were located in over two hundred counties, scattered from the Sabine River to the Rio Grande, and from the Gulf of Mexico to the Indian Territory. They embraced every variety of land, from the richest agricultural soil to the poorest grazing lands; they included heavily timbered lands, mineral lands, prairie, plains, and desert.* 7 The proper administration of this vast domain was a problem of much moment for every Governor and Legislature throughout the latter part of the nineteenth century, because the wisdom of the administration determined the value of the domain to the people# A brief examination of the preceding legislative policies dealing with this public domain will enable us to understand the magnitude of the question that confronted Governor Ireland and the Eighteenth Legislature in 1883. The public school lands as such were first offered for Q sale by an act of the Fourteenth Legislature, April 24, 1874. This law provided for the sale of the alternate sections of land as surveyed by railroads or other improvement companies. Sales were made to actual settlers only, and applicants were required to settle within twelve months from the date of application. The maximum amount of land that could be purchased was 160 acres, the minimum 80 acres. The minimum price was one dollar and fifty cents an acre. The value of the land was fixed by a board of commissioners in each county. The time limit for the payment of the land was ten years. Under the law, from October 1, 1874 to September 1, 1878, 240,000 acres were sold to 1,500 Q purchasers. The school fund had slow growth under this system. This law of 1874 was in operation when 0. M. Roberts became Governor, 1879. He wanted a more rapid sale of the lands in order that the permanent school fund might be increased. The scholastic population was increasing faster than the public free school fund, he declared, in his message to the special session of the Sixteenth Legislature. There were about thirty-five million acres of school lands which should increase the school fund from three to fifteen or twenty million dollars. That fund supported by a light tax should build and maintain an efficient system of public schools •“ L ° The result of Roberts’s interest was a repeal of the law of 1874 and the passage of a new land act July 8, This law provides for the sale of alternate sections of agricultural land surveyed by railroads in organized counties at a minimum price of one dollar per acre. The land could be sold without reference to the applicant’s becoming an actual settler. The limit allowed to each purchaser was one section of agricultural land and two sections of pasture land. One-tenth of the purchase price was required in advance, the remainder to be paid in nine annual installments bearing ten per cent interest. The county surveyor was given the power to classify and evaluate the lands. This gave rise to unfair dealing since the only check on the surveyor’s power was a provision that the Commissioner of the General Land Office might withdraw the lands from One million acres of land were sold in the three years following the passage of this law. A land law enacted July 14, 1379, known as the "Fifty Cent Law" placed the unorganized public domain on the market at fifty cents an acre. The purpose of this law was to create a fund for paying the bonded debt of the State in 13 addition to augmenting the available school fund. Under this law 3,201,283 acres were sold for the sum of $1,600,641.53, 1 4 half of which went to the school fund. 15 The land laws were again added to in 1881. That law required school lands to be valued by the Commissioner 1 s Court and the surveyor of each county. The price was Increased to two dollars an acre for watered lands. The amount that could be purchased was extended to seven sections except land located within five miles of the geographical center of the county, in that case purchase was limited to three sections. The time limit for payment was extended to twenty years, and no requirement was made for settling the land. By this law 1 A about 5,000,000 acres of school land were sold. These laws helped to promote the great wave of land speculation which reached its climax in 1882. The "Fifty Cent Law," coupled with the introduction of the Gould and the Palmer-Sullivan systems of railroads, brought such enterprise and speculation within the borders of the State as is seldom witnessed in any country. The Land Commissioner in his annual report, September 1, 1882, declared that a law contemplating the gradual alienation of the domain was used as a means of acquiring vast bodies of from 100,000 to 1,000,000 acres. The immediate and potent effect was to paralyze all transactions in private lands, and to cause utter contempt for negotiations where thousands of acres of 17 land did not figure. These lands passed into the hands of wealthy individuals and speculators. The limitations on the amount of land that could be purchased by an individual was made in the interest of the settlers, but they were easily evaded by substituting fictitious names or names of 18 wife and children when the land was purchased. Another abuse of the period was that practiced by the so-called f, county seat rings. ” When lands were placed on the market, notice was sent to the county surveyor in a sealed communication from the Land Commissioner’s office. Many surveyors, upon receipt of such notices, would permit their friends to file on the choice sections. The land then filed on would be withdrawn from the market for ninety days. At the end of that time, if the land was not sold to bona fide purchasers, members of the ring would file again. Bona fide purchasers were forced to make terms with the "ring,” paying them a bonus, sometimes as much as five hundred dollars, for the file. The amount of the bonus depended on what the "ring” considered the land to be worth. This practice worked a hardship on bona fide purchasers, many of whom left the State in disgust. Such were the public land laws and policies that confronted the Eighteenth Legislature, in January, 1883. As already noted, Governor Ireland had, in his campaign, advocated the conservation of the public lands. In his message to the Legislature he suggested that the sale of public land be continued, but that the time for payment be greatly extended. This, he believed, would relieve the congested condition of the treasury and encourage settlement. He further suggested that a minimum price of two dollars per acre be placed on the lands, and that they be subject to 20 bids over a period of six months. In order to check land speculation and to clear the field for legislation, the Eighteenth Legislature, by an act of January 22, 1883, suspended all laws authorizing the sale of 21 public lands. ”If this temporary suspension, which appears to have been instituted by the new executive, is not followed by sagacious legislative action, it will not be for want of executive support,” said the editor of the Galveston News* "The members, through the influence of their constituents,” said he, ”are well-nigh unanimously pledged to a new departure on the land question.” The editor suggested, also, that the Legislature might shift the responsibility of solving the problem by adopting the policy recommended by the Commissioner of the General Land Office—that of establishing a land op bureau and lease system. It would appear from the journals of the Eighteenth Legislature that that body was not anxious to shift the responsibility. Numerous land bills were introduced into both houses. Some members wanted to adopt a sales policy entirely, others favored a lease only for pasture lands. The advocates of the sale policy claimed that a magnificent available school fund could be built up from the interest on the purchase money and taxes on the land, while the advocates of the lease policy claimed that the State would receive a large available fund from leases and at the same time, retain possession of the land which would increase in 23 value as population increased. After three months of strenuous effort, by the lawmakers, the land act of April 12, 1883 was passed by both houses and signed by the Governor. This law, which went into operation three months after its passage, established a new system for the classification, sale, and lease of the public land, and thereby did away with the necessity of consulting separate laws dealing with those lands as had been the case for the 24 preceding four years. The changes made affected the price of land, the amount that could be purchased, and the lease of pasture lands. The law created a State Land Board composed of the Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, Treasurer, and 25 Commissioner of the General Land Office. This board was to have charge of the administration of the public lands. Its duties were to classify the lands as to agricultural, pasture, and timbered lands, and to ascertain which had permanent water and which bordered on lands with permanent water. The Board was also required to secure a tabulated statement of the land in each county, the number of surveys, the quantity of land in each survey, the company or individual to whom certificate was granted, and a description 26 of improvements of each survey. The law fixed the minimum price of watered agricultural and pasture lands at three dollars per acre and unwatered lands at two dollars per acre# The price of lands having timber suitable for lumber was placed at the minimum of five dollars and ordinary timbered lands at two dollars. The maximum acreage of agricultural land that could be bought by an individual was 640 acres; the maximum of unwatered lands was seven sections; the minimum of agricultural lands was 160 acres; and the minimum of timbered lands was 80 acres. Agricultural land could be sold only to actual settlers. Therefore, the purchaser had to make affidavit of intention to settle on the land within six months before a sale could be perfected. Under the law, the purchaser was required to pay one-thirtieth of the principal down and the balance by the end of thirty years, with an interest rate of five per cent per annum, but if he so desired, he might complete the payment within three years. Under the law, the Land Board could also lease surveyed lands of every character, watered, dry and timbered, at a minimum of four cents an acre, by competitive bidding. The annual rent was to be paid in advance and no lease was to 27 exceed ten years. All lands leased were subject to purchase for actual settlement. The stockmen were not pleased with this phase of the law 9 They wanted a maximum rental of two 28 cents and a minimum period of twenty years. The law left much to the discretion of the Board —the number of agents it should employ, what they should do, salaries they should receive, when and to whom the money received from the leases and sales should be paid. Yet the Board was left without means of enforcing any measure it might adopt. The Attorney General in his Annual Report, 1885-1886, said of the law: This act, though long, had in it but little of the elements of a law according to any known definition. It is a poorly disguised confession that the legislative body enacting it did not know what to do with the school, university, and asylum lands, how they should be used, how disposed of. It implied a compliment--!t may be, an undeserved one —that the officers upon whom the broad duty was imposed were possessed of such Though the law was intended primarily to benefit the small settler rather than the land speculator and the stockman, it did not preclude the acquisition through fraud and manipulation. Large holdings were built up through purchases from friends and relatives. So inadequate was the law against the accumulation of large tracts of land that the Board later refused to put watered lands on the market and limited pasture lands to two sections, to the purchaser, instead of the 30 seven authorized by the law. An examination of the various acts of the Land Board shows that that body assumed much freedom in its exercise of the powers granted to it by the law of 1883. In October, 1883, the Board announced its first definite policy. This resolution placed all lands on the market according to the law of April 12, 1883, except watered lands, unless such lands were occupied by actual settlers prior to January 1, 1883. Under this resolution, 1,193,606 acres of dry lands were sold, and 332,205 acres of watered lands were awarded to ’’>2 settlers who were occupying them before January 1, 1883. The first leasing under the law took place in January, 1884* The land was let at four cents an acre, but much of it was immediately sub-leased at eight cents an acre, which showed that the schools were still being defrauded by speculators. In February, 1884, the Board, in order to put a stop to such defrauding, made a radical departure in its system of purchasing and leasing lands. No land was to be leased for a longer term than six years, and the price of the lease was increased to eight cents for dry land and twenty cents for watered land, while the Board retained the right to reject all applications to lease watered lands. This change in lease policy resulted in a struggle between the Board and the cattlemen of the State which continued throughout the administration of the law of 1883.’ The action of the Board in raising the lease from the minimum of four cents as fixed by the law to a minimum of eight cents was declared unconstitutional in All watered lands were taken off the market by resolution of the Board, February, 1884• No lands were sold except to actual settlers, and they were allowed to purchase only one section of agricultural land or two sections of pasture land. Under this regulation 368,000 acres of dry land were sold to settlers. 35 In September, 1884, the Board reduced the amount of land that could be purchased to one section of dry land which could be sold only to the head of a family desiring it for a homestead. This resolution remained in force until February 4, 1885, when all lands were temporarily taken off the market.3s So serious were the objections made to the operations of the Land Board under the law of 1883, that Governor Ireland gave the special session of the Eighteenth Legislature, January 8, 1884, jurisdiction to amend the law. The Governor in his message to that body, called attention to the fact that the Board had experienced great difficulty in putting it into operation. The Legislature, however, took no action on the matter, and the policies of the Land Board continued without legislative modification. The Land Board, from the time it put the lands on the market, October 23, 1883, until the meeting of the Nineteenth 38 Legislature, January 13, 1885, sold the following'- lands: Acres Free school lands • •••••••• 1,965,201 University lands • •••••••. 14,400 Deaf and Dumb Asylum lands • • • • 58,800 Blind Asylum • •••••••••• 22,908 Lunatic Asylum • •••••••••• 18,656 Orphan Asylum • •••••••••• 50,033 Total 2,129,998 During the same period it leased: Free school lands • • 1,759,325 University lands .••••••• 42,080 -Deaf and Dumb Asylum • • 640 Blind Asylum • ••••••••• 760 Total 1,802,805 Throughout the session of the Nineteenth Legislature, the question of the sale of school and other lands was constantly agitated and many changes were proposed. The views of the members of the Legislature differed so widely that it seemed impossible for them to agree on any measure, and it was not until the last hour of the last day of the session that the Land Bill was sent to Governor Ireland for 39 his approval. The bill was not what was wanted by the majority of the legislators, but the contest over the land problems became so heated that a compromise measure had to be adopted in order to effect any legislation at all on the 40 subject. Ireland, in his message to the Nineteenth Legislature, had called attention to the imperfections of the land law of 1883, noting especially the difficulties experienced by the Board in its administration. He proposed that most of the agricultural lands be left open to settlers, but endorsed the leasing of non~agricultural land so that the State institutions to which they were appropriated might derive immediate 41 benefit from them. The Land Bill as finally passed by the Nineteenth Legislature was not in harmony with the Governor’s views on the problems of selling and leasing the public lands. The bill reached the Governor too late to be sent back for revision. But there would have been little hope of accomplishing an harmonious revision, even if a special session of the Legislature had been called, since the members themselves were hopelessly divided and distracted on the subject, and were 42 out of harmony with the Governor’s views on the matter. There were two courses open to Governor Ireland: he could either approve the new bill, faulty as it was, or he could veto it and leave the law of 1883 with its defects still in force. He decided to pursue the latter course, and on April 43 15, 1885, he published his veto proclamation. An unjust charge was made that Ireland deliberately withheld the bill, until after the adjournment of the legislature, thus refusing to give that body an opportunity to pass the bill over his veto. In his veto proclamation, Governor Ireland gave an analysis of the most objectionable features of the law and pointed out the evils that would result from its operation. The law proposed to allow any person or corporation to lease any amount of land desired at five cents an acre. The Governor pointed out that whole counties might, and no doubt would, come under the control of one person or a group of persons, and, he maintained, the State was then suffering from just such a situation. The Governor declared that he would never sanction the acquisition of vast tracts of land 44 by one management. The bill limited the purchaser to one section of land. The Governor opposed this measure on the ground, that in some parts of the State a man could not make a living for himself and family on that amount of lend. Then, too, he objected to the restricting of an unmarried man to 160 acres. He declared it was not just to limit one man to 160 acres and allow his adjoining neighbor to lease 200,000. Ireland also objected to that part of the law which proposed to place watered sections on the market. In his message to the Nineteenth Legislature, he endorsed the adoption of a constitutional amendment, if need be, to preserve the streams of the State for public use. In closing his objections to the bill of 1885, he showed the serious consequences that the neglect to protect the streams would have on the institutions of the State. "If access cannot be had to the streams," he asserted, "the lands will remain free to those who control the waters. It requires no stretch of the imagination to see that it is but a few years, if this bill should become a law, until the large capitalists would own the waters, and command all the balance. Thus it would result that the only benefit the Schools, University, and Asylums would ever get out of Texas lands would come from the watered sections at two dollars per Never was a veto more properly exercised than that which prevented the Land Bill of 1885 from becoming a law, declared the editor of the Texas Review. Said the Galveston Daily News, ’’Governor Ireland vetoed the land bill and in so doing raised „47 himself to the full height of conscientious duty." With the veto of the land bill, the Land Board again resumed the administration of the public domain and continued to perform that duty until 1887. The Board, after many experiments, reached a fairly stable position in regard to its policies in selling and leasing the School, University, and Asylum lands. For the first two years, its regulations changed rapidly. During that period seven different sets of rules were formulated for selling and leasing school lands, materially changing the methods of acquiring land, the quantity to be acquired, prices, and other important essentials. They varied the amount of land that could be purchased from seven sections to one section. They refused, at first, to sell except to the head of a family, later, by another resolution, they sold to any one. They fixed the minimum rental at four, eight, and six cents per acre, when the law provided for four cents. The experiments and variations finally resolved themselves into three well defined principles: (1) Lands were to be sold to actual settlers only; (2) No watered lands were to be sold or leased; (3) Only one section should be sold to a purchaser. These policies of the Board differed essentially from the policies established by the law of 1883 which prescribed: (1) That all watered, unwatered, and timbered lands should be sold or leased; (2) No sale to one person was to exceed seven sections of pasture land: (3) Actual settlement was 48 not required except from purchasers of agricultural lands. The Land Board came in for much abuse, especially from corporations, cattlemen, and individuals whose selfish greed was interferred with by its policies. It was accused of being responsible for every misfortune from a ’’fall in the price of cattle to a protracted drouth.” The newspapers of the State were severe in their criticism of the Board. Some papers went so far as to claim that no poor man could get a home in Texas. Certain papers declared that the policies of the Board materially checked immigration and settlement in the western sections of the State. If the land and cattle companies had devised a plan and spent their money to prevent the influx of settlers upon their ranges, declared the Land Commissioner, they could not have found a better one than that pursued by the papers. 49 The Land Board, though it vacillated in its policies and assumed powers not granted to it by law, must be awarded honesty of purpose in a faithful attempt to prevent the practice of fraud in the usurpation of the public lands. 1 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 501. 2 H. P. N. Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, 11, 1839, p. 134. 5 Ibid. 4 A. S. Lang, Financial History of the Public Lands in Texas, 138. 5 Constitution of 1876, Article VIII, Section 2. 6 Land Commissioner’s Special Report, March 1, 1882. 7 Austin Statesman, September 21, 1882. 8 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, VIII, 142. 9 C. R. Johns and. S. G. Sneed. (editors), Texas Review, I, 202. ’’Variations in Policies on School Lands.” 10 Texas Governors * Messages, 309. 11 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, IX, 55. 12 E. T. Miller, Financial History of Texas, 329-330. 13 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, IX, 80. 14 Lang, Financial History of the Public Lands in Texas, 169. 15 Gammel, Laws of the State of Te^as, IX, 211. 16 Texas Review, I, 202. "Variations in Policies on School Lands. 71 17 Report of the Land Commissioner, September 1, 1882. 18 Miller, A Financial History of Texas, 331. 19 Galveston Daily News, May 19, 1882* 20 Texas Governors’ Messages, Ireland’s Message, January 29, 1883, p. 478. 21 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, IX, 308. 22 Galveston Daily News, January 23, 1883. 23 Dallas Herald, February 15, 1883. 24 Miller, A Financial History of Texas, 333. 25 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, IX, 391. 26 Ibid, 27 Gamine 1, Laws of the State of Texas, IX, 391. 28 Miller, A Financial History of Texas, 334. 29 Attorney-General 1 s Report, 1885-1886, p. 18. 30 Attorney-General 1 s Report, 1885-1886, p. 18 31 Texas Review, I, 204. "Variations in Policies on School Lands.*" 32 Ibid., 205. 33 Report of the State Land Board, 7• 34 Miller, A Financial History of Texas, 335, note 1. 35 Texas I, 206. 36 Report of State Land Board to Governor Ireland, 10. 37 Texas Governors * Messages, 497. 38 Texas Governors T Messages, 501. 39 Texas Review, I, March, 1886, p. 395. "Governor Ireland 1 s Administration." "Veto of the Land Bill of 1885." 40 Ibid. 41 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 502. 42 Texas Review, I, 397. ’’Veto of the Land Bill of 1885.” 43 Ibid. 44 Texas Review, I, 397. "Veto of the Land Bill of 1885.” 45 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 502. 46 Texas Review, I, 400. ’’Veto of the Land Bill of 1885.” 47 Galveston Dally News, April 17, 1885. 48 Texas Review, I, 209. "Variations in Policies on School Lands."” 49 Land Commissioner* s Report, September 1, 1886. CHAPTER V THE FENCE CUTTING WAR OF 1883 In 1883, Texas found itself in the midst of a fence cutting war; a war which shook the State from center to circumference; a war that took some toll of human life, caused much hard feeling, and the destruction of a great deal of property; a war that affected people far beyond the borders of the State and brought many serious consequences in its wake* There were a number of factors that contributed to the crisis* The land speculation, the cattle boom, free grass controversy, erection of barbed wire fences, westward advance of the farmer, unemployment of the cowboy, cattle rustling, and the drouth were the most momentous circumstances leading to the war on the fences. The cattle boom of the eighties, together with the inflow of capital and the rapid increase in railroad building, produced a tremendous speculation in Texas lands. Men came to Texas from everywhere—from Missouri, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, Canada, England, Scotland, and other parts of the world—to acquire possession of the public lands. They leased and bought the land in huge tracts; fifty thousand, one hundred thousand, five hundred thousand, and even a million acres were not The lands were bought and leased, by individuals and by companies. The following list of land and cattle companies chartered in the year 1883, shows the activities of such corporations within the State. Land and Cattle Companies Chartered in one year’s time „ Capital TT . Companies Stock Headquarters Palo Pinto Merino Co. $ 100,000 Weatherford Mill Iron Cattle Co. 1,000,000 Gainesville Monro Cattle Co. 500,000 Albany Ohio Wool Growing Co. 100,000 San Antonio Mexico Cattle Co. 500,000 Colorado Espuela Cattle Co. 500,000 Ft. Worth Llano Live Stock Co. 400,000 Ft. Worth North Concho Cattle Co. 300,000 Colorado Alamo Cattle Co. 600,000 Ft. Worth Rio Grande Cattle Co. 250,000 Colorado Gainesville Live Stock Co. 10,000 Gainesville Col. Chicago & Texas Land Invest. 3,500,000 Gainesville Stone, Cattle and Pasture Co. 4,000,000 Gainesville Ft. Worth Live Stock and Land Co. 100,000 Ft. Worth Boston & Texas Land and Loan Co. 200,000 Dallas Texas Land and Live Stock Co. 50,000 Ft. Worth Texas Investment Co. 100,000 Ft. Worth Texas and Montana Co. 600,000 Ft. Worth Indiana Live Stock Co. 500,000 Dallas Live Stock Protective Asso. 25,000 Dallas Gainesville Land and Cattle Co. 1,000,000 Gainesville S.R.E. Land and Cattle Co. 200,000 Ft. Worth Horse Shoe Cattle Co. 100,000 Ft. Texas was almost overwhelmed by the mad rush of outsiders to secure ranch lands. The country was fairly crowded with capitalists who took up school lands, public lands, and railroad lands. As cattle prices increased, the desire for ranches became so great that almost all other types of lend business in the State ceased. This traffic in vast land areas brought opposition in its train, and contributed much to the conflict of 1883. Before 1876, the Texas cattle ranges were largely confined to the eastern and southern half of the State, and before that date, the advance of the cattle frontier was a very halting one. In 1851, David S. Files moved the first herd into Hill County; in 1852 Robert K. Wylie drove a small herd into Erath County; while in 1857 Charles Goodnight carried a herd into Palo Pinto County. No advance was made during the Civil War and for a short time thereafter. However, beginning in 1876, the industry shot across the plains in the short space of two years. 4 Fenced ranges were unknown in those days and the supply of free grass was considered unlimited. But the climax of the free range cattle business was rapidly approaching. The price of cattle rose from four dollars and fifty cents a head, range price in 1870, to twenty-five dollars a head in 1884.$ So attractive had the stock industry in Texas become by the early eighties that practically every square mile of the range country was utilized. The advance upon the cattle country during those years was comparable to a mining rush. Glowing reports of the rapid wealth to be acquired in the cattle industry, the high sounding titles ”cattle king” and ”cattle baron,” the glamour of the romantic and the picturesque features of the business appealed to the uninitiated everywhere. Such a cattle boom brought a prosperity which could not last. The bottom dropped out of the boom before the eighties had had passed. As an example of that collapse, one man, who in 1883 refused $1,500,000 for his cattle, ranch outfit, and range rights, sold them all in 1886 for $245,000. $ So great was the over-stocking of the range that the grass in many sections was permanently impaired and cattlemen were forced to the point of conflict while trying to secure water and grass for their often-starving herds. The cattle industry of Texas had grown up on the unfenced open ranges, with its millions of acres of free lands. Many men who owned from five hundred to five thousand head of cattle or even more, produced them on the free grass of the State, scarcely owning or leasing enough land on which 7 to round up their herds. For a decade or more following the Civil War the range country of Texas was open to any body who might go in and occupy it. Nature provided food for the cattle without labor, without money, and without price from their owners. The range was supposed to be without limit and without exhaustion. Many men grew wealthy from the cattle produced on these open ranges. For example, Colonel J. L. Driskill of Austin, owner of eight hundred head of cattle in 1873, but no land, estimated his wealth in 1884 at $BOO,OOO, all produced on the free grass of the State, for the use of which he paid no taxes. And Colonel Driskill was only one of many who made such remark- Q able fortunes on the free grass range. The holdings of many free grass men were very large, embracing many square miles. ’’Range rights” were bought and sold in Texas as in other parts of the West. But the range rights by the eighties were not so carefully recognized and respected as they had been in earlier days. The range was too crowded, and strife between stockmen was inevitable. The crowding of the ranges, together with the introduction of barbed wire, a fence material peculiarly adapted to the plains country, led to the fencing of the ranges, some fencing was done in South Texas before the introduction of barbed wire. In the early seventies a few ranches embracing from 20,000 to 30,000 acres were fenced with board fences. One ranch, near Corpus Christi, of 90,000 acres, Q was enclosed by a continuous board fence. v But board and rail fences were not adapted to the prairies and plains country where the cattle business was most extensive. The question of fencing had become a problem in the sparsely timbered sections of the settled portions of the State as early as 1860, and smooth wire fencing had been tried and pronounced a failure. Barbed wire was invented by J. F. Glidden of DeKalb, Illinois, in 1874. It was introduced into Texas September, 1875, by Henry B. Sanborn, who had formerly lived in Glidden’s home. Sanborn was made the general agent of Washburn and Moen, the manufacturers of the wire. He decided to begin operations in Texas where he found fencing materials much needed, especially in the cattle areas. At Gainesville, Sanborn sold the first ten reels of the wire ever sold in the State. A f ew wee ks later he sold the 12 first carload to ranchmen at Rockport. The introduction of barbed wire into Texas produced more than one important consequence to the people of the State. It led to the transition of the cattle business from the free grass system, with its scrub longhorns, to the fenced ranches with their improved breeds. But it also brought in its wake a long train of conflicts which resulted in some bloodshed and in the destruction of much property, the effects of which were felt throughout the State. By 1877, the use of barbed wire had become an issue among Texas people. There were many stockmen who believed that it would be too destructive to horses and cattle, and they opposed it vehemently. The lumbermen also opposed its Introduction because its use would decrease the demand for lumber for fencing purposes. The railroads supported the lumbermen in their oppositions to the use of barbed wire because it meant a decrease in the shipment of lumber. Bills were even introduced into the Legislature prohibiting the use of the wire. The adaptation of barbed wire to the prairie country, however, was too complete for its use to be long deferred. By 1883 the sale of the wire in the State amounted to almost a million dollars annually, and the fencing of the 14 ranges was becoming an accomplished fact. Great stretches of fences were erected all over Texas. These extended across the prairies in,long unbroken lines, some twentyfive, some fifty, and some a hundred or more miles in length without a break, enclosing whatever might be found within the area. The streams and permanent water holes, always an important item in Texas, were closed without regard to ownership. In the absence of proper laws, public roads were fenced in many places, necessitating detours of forty or fifty miles around pastures in order to reach the river or county seat a few miles distant. Often whole counties were enclosed within one fence. The Matador Cattle Company held Crosby, Dickens, and Motley Counties; the ranch was fenced in the early eighties. The Kerr Land and Cattle Company was said to have 70,000 head of cattle in one pasture across which was a day's H. T. Burton in his history of the J. A. Ranch, belonging to John G. Adair and Charles Goodnight, gives the following interesting data: J. A. Ranch--1884 Land in fee. .•••••••••• 333,000 acres Leased from Railroads. •••••• 39,686 Unleased school land • 200,000 Private land leased inside pasture. • •••••.••.•• 25,000 Vacant land ••••••••••• 60,000 Grand Total ••••••••••• 668,520 acres Constructed fence line one hundred fifty-three miles located in Armstrong, Brisco, Donly, Hall, Randall and Swisher Counties.-*-' In one county, there was a pasture of 250,000 acres built on a cordon of sections owned by the pasture men. The fence was all on their land, but it enclosed over 50,000 acres that belonged to private individuals and to the State school land for which they paid no rent. There were, all told, from 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 acres of school land fenced by corporations, which they used and controlled with- 19 out paying anything therefor. The fences led to war between stockmen. Many ranchmen fought to the bitter end to maintain their rights on the open range. "Free grass" they demanded and determined to have, if they had to fight for it. They believed that the land ought to be free. They roamed over the State from Red River to the Rio Grande along the borders of the organized counties. If these men were not excluded from their free grass range by the fences, they were often shut off from convenient watering-places• They were much incensed by the conditions entailed thereby. They looked upon the barbed wire fence as one of "Satan 1 s most infamous inventions," and the closing of the precious water rights, as an "intolerable 21 outrage.” These men made war on the fences and on the owners of the fences. The westward advance of the small farmer, the "nester" contemptuously called by the stockmen, was another important factor in bringing on the fence troubles of 1883. The advancement of railroads and the introduction of barbed wire made it possible for agriculture to begin the struggle with the stock industry. In 1876, it was estimated that over 400,000 people immigrated to Texas. Thousands of those newcomers settled in Cooke, Montague, Clay, Wise, Jack, Young, 22 Archer, Erath, Comanche, and Brown Counties.' By 1880, farm settlements were made in Wilbarger, Knox, Haskell, Jones, and Taylor Counties. The towns of Abilene, Sweetwater, 23 Colorado, and Big Spring were laid out the same year.'-'” These settlers depended for support on small herds of cattle, a few hogs, and some feed stuff. The "nester" was not wanted by the ranchmen. If he couldn’t be driven out, he was fenced in, shut off from water, and otherwise intimidated. But the nester had come to stay. When he found the fences in his way he cut the fences. Often his grass was consumed by the cattle from the large pastures. The cattlemen made use of the open country during the growing season, saving the pasture grass for winter use. This served to increase the ill-feeling between the two classes. For a time the free-range stockmen and the farmers waived their distrust of each other and joined forces against the pasture men/ 5 But the ranchmen were not the only ones at fault. The settlers often took unfair advantage of the big pasture men in the absence of adequate laws defining the duties of actual settler and lessee. A man could purchase a section of land inside a pasture and turn loose whatever number of cattle he might desire. Cases are on record showing how the settler would purchase a section of public land enclosed within a big pasture and, without erecting fences or improving his property in any way, turn loose within the pasture almost any number of cattle, sometimes as many as three thousand i j 26 head. Another element of discontent which helped to bring on the crisis of 1883 was the growing unemployment of the cowboy* That picturesque but often desperate character of the open range saw his occupation being ruined with the 27 fencing of the ranges. The need for cowboys within the fenced pastures was greatly reduced, one man out of a former five or six finding employment. These men also destroyed the fences. Wire fences hindered the stealing and rustling of cattle and were greatly opposed by the rustlers, those lawless men who lived off the drift cattle. These men opposed the fences because they not only obstructed the trails but also prevented the drifting of the cattle and PP otherwise impeded their business. ° These brand burners, skinners, and cattle thieves often became fence cutters. The antagonistic aggressiveness of the pasture men, which stood directly in the way of progress, plus the bitterness of the free grass men, the enmity of the farmer class, the animosity of the cowboys, and the presence of a large number of lawless men were chiefly responsible for the war on the fences. The State Government also had some responsibility for the conflict. The State military department ordered certain fences cut, in 1883, in order to open up roads to the water holes during the severe drouth that prevailed at the time. There probably were many justifiable cases of fence cutting in its early stages, but by the summer and fall of 1883, it amounted to a moral disease. No type of property escaped the ravages of the mob. In many instances, the original causes of the trouble were lost sight of and a degeneration into indiscriminate destruction of property, actuated largely by personal revenge, took place. The property of the rich and poor, strong and weak, men, widows, and orphan children 50 was all attacked alike. Fences enclosing large pastures, small pastures, farms, residence enclosures, and garden plots all shared the same fate. Even graveyards could not produce enough ghosts to frighten the "nippers" away. No section of the State was entirely free from the depredations of the "fence cutters." Reports from Waco, Corsicana, Austin, Denton, San Antonio, and from many other sections of the older and more settled portions of the State showed that they were not free from the war on the "fences." Fences were cut within nine miles of Waco and as far South as Galveston Island.’ But in the plains region of the State the damage was greatest, and there good men as well as bad ones engaged in the war on the fences- There men formed secret associations and decided by lot who should cut certain fences on certain nights. Get up your scissors, boys, And mount your gamest steeds, There’s work for us to-night, To the prairies we will speed# What right has bloated capital, To fence our prairies fair— We’ll cut the insolent wires. And make music in the Thus ran the song, and those upon whom the task fell apparently entered upon it with as much alacrity as the song would indicate. They would wait all night or go back another 34 night, staying with the job until it was finished. The fence-owners patrolled their lines to guard against the cutters, but in spite of watchfulness miles of fence went down every night. Frequently the opposing forces clashed and lives were lost in such encounters. $$ The war on the fences raged throughout the year 1883. Public sentiment was so strongly in sympathy with the ’’nippers” that it was difficult to do anything at all about it. In many counties, the county officers were accused of assist-36 ing the fence cutters in their work.’ In other counties grand juries would not indict them nor would petit juries 37 convict them.' 1 In most communities, it was well nigh impossible to get proof against those guilty of fence cutting. The offences were generally committed at night by unknown persons, and even if suspicion pointed strongly toward individuals, no actual proof was generally to be had, and if proof were obtained it was almost impossible to pun-38 ish the guilty because of public feeling,' Then, again, if indictments were made, as they were in some counties, the local officials were so intimidated by lawless bands of cutters that no punishment could be inflicted. The existing laws made fence cutting punishable by a fine of not less than $lO, nor more than SIOO, to which imprisonment could be added, not to exceed one year. The following story shows the extent to which juries were sometimes intimidated: At one session of the court in a certain little Texas village, in the early ’Bo f s, nearly two hundred fence cutters were indicted by the grand jury. When their time came up for trial they were on hand—very much so. The town thronged with them. Each man of them had a Winchester and a revolver, and they held together in a great body of silent, watchful, determined men.... The tension of the community was very great. All knew that if the limits of the law were enforced, the officers would have to fight the whole body of their prison- Really the court was in the hands of the prisoners, and had common sense enough to see it. One or two light fines were imposed, in cases where it was obviously just or feasible, and the other cases were dismissed or T continued. Brown County, a center of hostilities, suffered severely. On December 11, 1883, in the town of Brownwood a fight between two armed factions of citizens was narrowly averted by the efforts of peace officers. The enmity between the two groups had been provoked over controversies growing out of fence cutting. The press of the State expressed sympathy for the "cutters” and condemned the laws that permitted such conditions to arise. The Waco Examiner said of the cutters: The fence cutters, as a mass, are not cutthroats nor communists. They do a wrong to redress a wrong or what they esteem a wrong. To them it is a war of redress. It is not brigandage but revolution to them and that idea can never be shaken in their own minds. Prompt removal of the cause will knock from under them the shadow of right by which they justify their deeds. All good men will drop out when the wrong disappears. 42 Again, "Fence cutting is wrong per se, but it is also valuable as giving a positive dissent to a legal principle which oppresses the people." The Austin Statesman declared that fence cutting was an evil outgrowth of evil conditions, and that the legislature should strike at the root of the evil as well as the / 4 branches and remove the cause. Said the Galveston News, November 20, 1883* The wire fence cutting troubles are only one of the many evils growing out of the fallacious and dangerous policy of the state in selling off its domain in such large tracts, creating principalities, pashalics and baronates among a few capitalists and arousing a spirit of agrarianism among the poorer classes. Again we find expressions like the following? w Down with monopolies, they can’t exist in Texas and especially in Coleman County; away with your foreign capital; the range and soil of Texas belongs to the heroes of the South. n 46 With the breakdown of local authority, Governor Ireland was appealed to to bring the "cutters" to justice. He offered a S3O reward for the arrest and conviction of each and every fence cutter, but that brought few additional arrests. Governor Ireland then sent out detachments of troops into the most seriously affected counties. In most instances they were unable to accomplish anything. Rangers were sent to Coleman County where they made only two arrests and were looked upon as intruders by the county officials. After making a few arrests they were ordered out of Jack County by the citizens who feared they might prove a source of annoyance. At Waelder, in Gonzales County, where fence cutting was especially bad, a few Rangers did succeed in disarming a mob of fence cutters and sending them back to their homes 48 in peace. ~ But this success was rather the exception than the rule. Adjutant-General W. H. King, at the request of Governor Ireland, made a personal visit to the northern portions of the State, including Clay, Hunt, Denton, Wise, and Tarrant Counties. He held a number of public meetings in Coleman County, where armed conflict between cutters and pasture men was seriously threatened. He found that public sentiment in that county favored the cutters and that there was a deepseated hostility existing among the people against big pastures and barbed wire What was true of Coleman County was true of almost every other county in the State. The people everywhere were opposed to big pastures and wire fences. The citizens of Wilbarger County sent the following protest to Governor Ireland concerning the appropriation of the land of that county by the speculators and the big pasture men: Wilbarger Protest State of Texas) County of Wilbarger ) We the undersigned, bona fide citizens of Wilbarger County, representing as we do the interests of our county, would respectfully submit for your consideration this our protest against the sale of school lands of this county to a few persons who are attempting to purchase lands for no other purpose than for large pastures and for speculation, and we do hereby allege and charge the truth to be that the lands of this county are as a body agricultural land, and that the classification as made by the different speculators and land grabbers in regard to the lands of this county is false and untrue, and that a better agricultural county than Wilbarger County cannot be found in northwest Texas.so Throughout the year of 1883 fence cutting continued to grow. Out of the hundred and seventy-one organized counties of the State, more than half were directly affected by the disturbances. So serious did the matter become that Governor Ireland, October 15, 1883, called a special session of the Legislature to meet January 8, 1884, to consider and provide a remedy for the wanton destruction of the fences, and to provide a more efficient system of highways, and to amend 51 the law providing a penalty for enclosing school lands. Meanwhile, Governor Ireland was quite severely criticised in many sections for his failure to cope with the situation. The Galveston News, an ardent supporter of Ireland in the gubernatorial campaign of 1882, was outspoken in condemnation of the Governor: The flagitious feebleness of the government of Texas can no longer be hidden from view. No amount of sophistry and no quantity of excuse and apology can remove the naked fact that the Executive of the State is unequal to the suppression of In his message to the Legislature, January 8, 1884, Governor Ireland declared in vindication of his position in the fence cutting crisis that there was not, and had not been, necessary means placed at the disposition of the Executive to meet extraordinary emergencies. He could not employ detectives; for he neither had the lawful authority nor the money to pay such a force. He could not call into active service a single man, except in case of rebellion, insurrection or invasion. If he should declare fence cutters outlaws, the country would still be in ignorance as to who were the outlaws. Rewards had been offered in all cases, bearing some proportion to the punishment affixed by law to the offense. v He declared that the laws were adequate, but that public opinion had not stood back of them, permitting the lawless to advance. Governor Ireland offered certain recommendations as a basis for action by the Legislature on the all-absorbing questions of grazing, fencing, and fence cutting: 1. The absolute repeal of the law permitting persons to enclose school or public lands of any sort. 2. The enactment of a law making it highly penal for any one to enclose any public land without a contract with the State. 3. The enactment of a law making it a penal offense for any person knowingly to enclose the residence or land of another without the express authority from such person. 4. Providing for a liberal system of highways where the public good demanded it. 5. The passage of a law making it a felony for a person to willfully destroy or injure the fence of another. 6. The enactment of a law making it a penal offense for any one to drive stock onto any lands, private or public, for grazing without the express authority from the proper source to do so. 7• The repeal of limitation laws so far as they would bar recovery in a civil court for damages for the destruction of fencing. 8. The creation of courts and offices in remote parts of the State. 9. The enactment of a law giving the State authority to try persons guilty of fence cutting in any locality that it might choose.s4 Governor Ireland’s message was received with general favor, especially by the stockmen who were of the opinion that with a few minor changes, the suggestions offered would be sufficient to suppress go great had the interest in the fence-cutting crisis become that every leading newspaper in the United States had a repre- 56 sentative in Austin to watch the progress of the Legislature. The course of the Legislature, however, from the very first was doubtful. Many of the members themselves were either owners of big ranches, or were too much influenced by the powerful lobbies of the land and cattle companies to pass measures that would oppose the interests of the 58 stockmen. In addition, the members were too much divided for action. A bill to regulate the grazing of stock in Texas was introduced by Senator A. W. Terrell of Austin. The bill provided that stock in excess of twenty-five head should not be grazed on unenclosed land unless the owner were the lessee of at least ten acres of land for every head of stock grazed. It also gave protection to the man who might be enclosed in a big pasture and provided for the opening of 59 roads. But the Terrell bill did not please the interests of the big stockmen and was defeated. Numerous other bills concerning free grass, fencing, and fence cutting were introduced into both houses of the Legislature. The members were so hopelessly divided that it looked for several weeks as though nothing would be done. What suited some districts did not suit others. Some said that fence cutting had only begun in Texas if fence cutting were made a felony without an adequate penalty for unlawful enclosures; others wanted the cattlemen and cutters to be allowed to fight it out without legislative interference; still others believed that any legislation would favor the 60 wealthy at the expense of the poor. " After a month of uncertainty, the Legislature passed a law dealing directly with the problems of fence cutting* Wanton fence cutting was made a felony punishable by imprisonment from one to five years, as was also grass firing. The law also prohibited the erection of fences without leaving gates every three miles linear measure. It was also made unlawful to fence in the land of another without the consent of the owner, or any public land without the consent of the proper authorities* The law placed the burden of enforcement upon the Governor* A sum of $50,000 was placed in his hands to be employed for paying rewards, securing secret detectives, armed forces, and otherwise 62 ferreting out and suppressing crime. That phase of the law was objectionable to Governor Ireland who wanted to extend the powers to sheriffs, while he himself was given the right to see that the sheriffs performed their duties. 0. Ireland feared that a strict enforcement of the law would arouse too much hatred and opposition to him. Since 1884 was again election year, the Governor was apprehensive that the whole situation might prove to be his political undoing. The Governor’s political plight growing out of the legislative action was expressed by the following editorial: Wisely and discreetly used the power placed in the hands of the governor will settle in a measure the worst of the troubles, unwisely used it will work untold evils and dam the Governor beyond redemption. ’The free grass’ men are strong. They are rich and they are fully organized. They will place every obstruction in his way which can possibly suggest itself to determined, shrewd and alert men. .The coming struggle will be long and 64 bitter. Every inch of ground will be contested. A few weeks later, the Examiner again gave voice to the delicate position of Governor Ireland and the enforcement of the new lawsr If Ireland have not the nerve to deliver the decisive blow, then wol is Ireland, for Ireland must stand or fall with the dignity of the law. With fence cutting suppressed not all the Terrells can defeat him. But if within ninety days fence cutting is not suppressed, then the democratic standard must be placed in other hands• Throughout the spring and early summer of 1884 there was much opposition to the renomination of Ireland for a second term, all growing out of his policy in the fence cutting troubles. It was feared that the free grass men would put enough money into the campaign to unsettle matters greatly and that fear was not abated until the nominating 66 convention put an end to it. In fact, "grass” free and antifree was the political issue in 1884. All other problems sank into insignificance compared to that one. With the reward for the apprehension and arrest of fence cutters raised to |2OO for each offender, arrests became more numerous. Medina County reported thirty-five in jail at one time with warrants out for many more. Similar reports came in from many other counties. Governor Ireland, in his message to the Nineteenth Legislature, January 13, 1885, reported as follows on the fence cutting situation at tha t t ime r Under the operation of the legislation of the special session of the 18th Legislature, and the use of the money placed at my disposal, the epidemic of evil intended to be reached was rapidly swept away; and fence cutting now occurs not more frequently than other crimes. The correction of that evil is also largely due to a healthier sentiment among the people, and a comprehension of the truth that no central power, in republican governments, can protect a people from the lawless without the aid of the good people. Fence cutting, however, had not entirely ceased by 1886» It was still practiced to some extent in Brown, BA San Saba, and adjoining counties. The damage done to the State, from fence cutting in the two year period when it was at its height, was very great# It was estimated that the destruction in fences amounted to over $20,000,000. One citizen estimated that damage done to Brown County alone was over $1,000,000, and that the taxable values of the State decreased by more than $30,000,000. 69 All told the fence cutting war did much injury to the State. Values receded amazingly, lands near the troubled areas became almost worthless, many settlers sold out or abandoned their possessions and left the State, while Texas made a record for lawlessness that required many years to overcome. 1 "Recommendations of John D. Stephens, State Agent to the Land Board," in Report of State Land Board to the Nineteenth Legislature, January^T, 1885. 2 Austin Statesman, January 29, 1884. 3 Land Commissioner* s Report, 1882. 4 W. C. Holden, Alkali Trails, 31. 5 Farm and Ranch, May 1, 1884* 6 B. B. Paddock, History of North and West Texas, 159. 7 A. W. Terrell, Speech Before the Senate, January 21, 1884, p. 9. 8 Terrell, Speech Before the Senate, January 21, 1884, p. 9. 9 Prose and Poetry of the Live Stock Industry of the United States, l” Prepared by authority of the National Live Stock Association. Published by the National Live Stock Historical Association, Denver, Colorado and Kansas City, Missouri. 10 D. E. McArthur, The Cattle Industry of Texas, 285. Thesis Manuscript, The University of Texas. 11 Paddock, History of North and West Texas, 304. 12 Louis J. Wortham, in his History of Texas, 171, relates the following story concerning the introduction of barbed wire into Texas: "Just about the time the cattle drives were getting well started, there came to Texas a young hardware salesman with a vision. This man was John W. Gates, and he brought with him samples of a newfangled thing called ’barbed wire. l He proposed to induce the Texas cattlemen to use this wire for fences. Gates arrived at San Antonio in 1871, and he proceeded immediately to tell the cattlemen of the advantages of barbed wire as fence material. When he showed the wire to some of them, however, it caused great amusement. In fact, the cattlemen laughed loudly in the young man’s face. It was a great joke that anybody should think that the funny looking wire could restrain a bunch of Texas longhorns. It might be all right for gentle milch cows in the East, but a small herd of longhorns would make short work of it, they told him. Gates took the chaffing good-naturedly, but it aroused his sporting blood, and so he decided to show them. He proceeded to build a barbed wire fence around one of the plaza’s at San Antonio and then challenged the cattlemen to bring on a bunch of longhorns that could get out of it. Accordingly twenty-five of the wildest South Texas cattle that could be found were brought forward and driven into Gates’s pen. A lot of folks gathered to see the fun, for everybody but Gates expected the cattle to get out with very little trouble. However, it didn’t turn out that way. The cattle tried to get out, all right, but they didn’t make any progress. During a whole afternoon those wild steers were kept safely enclosed on the plaza and finally the cattlemen were convinced. Thus it was that the future millionaire and plunger, while a twenty-five dollar a week hardware salesman, opened up a market for barbed wire in Texas." 13 Paddock, History of North and West Texas, 304. 14 McArthur, The Cattle Industry of Texas, 287 • 15 Austin Statesman, March 2, 1884. 16 Austin Statesman, January 29, 1884. 17 H. T. Burton, A History of the J. A. Ranch, 49. 18 Austin Statesman, January 29, 1884. 19 "Agent Stephen 1 s Report on the School Lands," found in the Report of the Land Board to the Nineteenth Legislature, January 1, 1885, p. 12. 20 Terrell, Speech Before the Senate of Texas (1884, pamphlet), p. 6. 21 Prose and Poetry of the Live Stock Industry, I, 689* 22 Holden, Alkali Trails, 58* 23 Ibid. — 24 Clara M. Love, "History of the Cattle Industry in the Southwest," The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XX, 4. 25 Prose and Poetry of the Live Stock Industry, I, 685. 26 "Report of State Agent to the State Land Board" in Report of State Land Board to the Nineteenth Legislature, January 1, 1885, p. 5. 27 McArthur, The Cattle Industry of Texas, 287. 28 Holt, ’’The Introduction of Barbed Wire into Texas and the Fence Cutting War,” West Texas Historical Year Book, June, 1930, VI, 73. 29 Austin Statesman, November 28, 1883. 50 Austin Statesman, December 5, 1885. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 33 Waco Examiner, September 4, 1883, ’’The Song of the Wire Cutters? 7 ’ 34 Prose and Poetry of the Live Stock Industry, I, 685. 35 Ibid# 36 Austin Statesman, January 16, 1884. 37 Prose and Poetry of the Live Stock Industry, I, 685. 58 Report of the Adjutant-General, December, 1883. 39 Austin Statesman, November 28, 1883. 40 Emerson Hough, The Story of the Cowboy, 269. 41 T. R. Havins, "The Passing of the Frontier in Brown County," West Texas Historical Association Year Book, VIII. 1932, p. WT” 42 Waco Examiner, February 21, 1884. 43 Ibid., October 2, 1883. 44 Austin Statesman, January 5, 1884. 45 Galveston Daily News, November 20, 1883. 46 The Ft. Worth Daily Gazette, November 7, 1883. 47 Adjutant-General 1 s Report to Governor Ireland, December, 1883. 48 Holt, "The Introduction of Barbed Wire into Texas and the Fence Cutting War," in the West Texas Historical Association Year Book, June, 1930, p. 76. 49 Adjutant-General *s Report to Governor Ireland, December, 1883. 50 Austin Statesman, January 6, 1884. 51 Texas Governors* Messages, 488. 52 Austin Statesman, December 22, 1883, editorial from Galveston Daily News. 53 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 490. 54 Texas Governors T Messages, 492-493. 55 San Antonio Express, January 9, 1884. 56 Ibid. 57 Speech of Hon. A. W. Terrell before the Eighteenth Legislature, 18. 58 Austin Statesman, February 8, 1884. 59 Senate Journal, Eighteenth Legislature, 19. 60 San Antonio Express, February 6, 1884. 61 Waco Examiner, March 15, 1884, "Text of the Law." 62 Waco Examiner, February 6, 1884. Ibid. 64 Waco Examiner, February 5, 1884. 65 Ibid., February 26, 1884. 66 Ibid., October 18, 1884. 67 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 508. 68 Dallas News, November 8, 1886. 69 Holt, "Introduction of Barbed Wire into Texas and the Fence Cutting War,” West Texas Historical Association Year Book, 77. CHAPTER VI ATTEMPTS AT RAILROAD REGULATION A problem, comparable to and in some respects bound up with the administration of public lands, was that of establishing some regulation for Texas railroads. As railroad milage increased within the State, the need for some sort of management and control became paramount and Governors and Legislatures were forced to take action on the issue. This was an era of rapid railroad construction and of experimental statutory regulation and control of railroads. The problem was not a new one when Ireland and the Eighteenth Legislature took over the government of the State in 1883. In 1870, the State had less than 500 miles of railways in operation. At the end of the next twenty years, it ranked first in number of miles of railroads in the United States. This rapid railroad building was due largely to the State’s land grant policy which covered a period of thirty years, from 1852 to 1882, and included a donation of 35,000,000 acres of land. In addition to the land grants the roads were, in many Instances, the recipients of generous money grants, besides having right-of-ways granted, depots built, and other inducements given. The Civil War and Reconstruction following the war almost entirely prevented railroad building in Texas before 1870. But as conditions within the State returned to normal, construction leaped ahead. In 1870 there were 500 miles of railroads in Texas. By 1876, the number of miles had been increased to 1600. In 1877, 400 miles of road were constructed, 200 miles in 1878, 700 miles in 1879 and again in 1880. In 1881, 1,869 miles were added, the greatest number ever constructed in any one That addition gave the State over 5,000 miles of railways in actual opera- tion within its borders and the advancement to second place, 2 in railroad mileage, within the nation. In 1882, 1,300 miles were built. In that year, however, land grant acts were repealed and fares reduced from five to three cents per mile, with the result that thereafter construction was much reduced. In .each of the years 1883 and 1884, only 189 miles were opened to traffic. But 489 miles were added in 1885. By the close of Ireland’s second administration in 1887, the 'Z State had 7,889 miles of roads in operation. The present railway systems of Texas were largely built during the eighties of the nineteenth century. The Missouri, Kansas, and Texas System was opened from Fort Worth to Taylor in 1884. The Santa Fe System, in 1882, extended from Galveston to Lampasas, from Temple to Fort Worth, and from Galveston to Houston. In 1886 the western branch was extended to San Angelo. The Houston and Texas Central reached from Houston to Denison, 339 miles, from Hempstead to Austin, and from Bremond to Ross. The International and Great Northern extended from Longview to Laredo, from Houston to Palestine, besides having many other short branches. The Missouri Pacific reached from Fort Worth to Taylor, the 4 Texas and Pacific was built from Texarkana to El Paso, while the Southern Pacific had almost completed its line across the State from east to west. But during this time the financial condition of the railways was most precarious in spite of the generous land grants, sixteen sections for every mile of road constructed, plus other gifts to the roads. The railroads were required to survey and map their own lands and every alternate section as well, which lands were set aside to the public schools. This was done at great expense. Furthermore, their lands were, in most instances, located in the far West, hundreds of miles from civilization and were, therefore, of little immediate value. In fact, the railways themselves in many instances had penetrated the frontier far "beyond hope of adequate returns in transportation for years to come. For example, the Texas and Pacific received in net earnings for the third week of March, 1882, only $4OO above its net earnings for the same week in 1881 while it had constructed for the year 500 miles of additional road. Not a single railroad in Texas was paying dividends during Ireland’s term 7 as Governor. In 1881, two years before Ireland*s administration the total indebtedness of Texas railroads was $117,962,273.76. That, plus the $80,000,000 invested as stock, made a grand total of $187,962,273.76, while their net earnings were only $4,723,000, which sum did not pay interest on the outstanding p bonds. Out of the twenty railroads operating within the 9 State four were in the hands of receivers in 1883. There were really more roads than the needs of the population demanded. Only perpetual boom conditions could keep them in a thriving condition.'® Because the roads were over built and revenues insufficient for proper maintenance. their physical condition was very poor. The roadbeds were badly constructed, bridges insecure, rolling stock insufficient and in constant need of repair, often causing costly freight blockades, depots mere makeshifts, time schedules poorly kept, and the general service quite inferior. Against such conditions there was continuous complaint from the people. The railroads, in order to overcome some of the difficulties under which they labored, followed two policies which added still more to the dissatisfaction of the general public, their unhappy and helpless victims, who clamored for some sort of government regulation. One of these policies, growing out of the need for more business, and out of cutthroat competition, which was the order of the day, was unfair discriminations and rebates in freight rates for individuals and for towns. The second policy was the practice of poolings, combinations, and mergers. In the matter of discrimination, the roads were guilty of many abuses. Texas laws as early as 1853 had prescribed a general schedule of rates and fares, 11 but those laws had never been observed. There was supposed to be a maximum freight rate that applied to all alike, yet all the roads had been so open in their abuse of the law and the complaints against them were so universal that the Constitution of 1876 in Article X, Section 2, declared the railroads public highways and common carriers and gave the Legislature power to pass laws to correct abuses in unfair discriminations in freight rates and power to regulate passenger rates. Article XVI, Section 25 of the Constitution forbade the granting of rebates in freight rates* The Sixteenth Legislature, 1879, in accordance with the Constitution, fixed the rates at five cents per mile for passengers and a maximum freight rate of fifty cents per 12 hundred pounds for every hundred miles. The same act prohibited discriminations against persons and places. In 1882, the Seventeenth Legislature, in special session, reduced the five cent passenger fare to three cents, an act which was bitterly opposed by the railroad men on the ground that the sparsity of population and lightness of passenger traffic did not warrant such a reduction, and that the railways of Texas could not hope to compare with the older roads of the more thickly populated states of the East which maintained cheaper fares. The Seventeenth Legislature also withdrew the land grants to the railroads. The immediate result of both acts, as I have already noted, was a great reduction in railroad construction, from 1,300 miles, in 1882, to 189 miles, in 1883. In complete disregard of the laws of 1879 and 1882, unfair discriminations continued. For example, the rates from St. Louis to San Antonio were cheaper than from St. Louis to Austin, over the same The same was true of rates from Galveston to Austin and San Antonio, and from Galveston to Austin and Lampasas. l4 What was true of Austin and San Antonio was also true of many other towns which suffered because of the discrimination in freight rates. In the matter of rebates, the railroads were equally guilty. In almost every town certain merchants were favored at the expense of others. It was common practice to give rebates of $1.25 per bale to large cotton shippers from 15 inland points to Galveston. In a report of D. C. Stone, Commissioner of the Galveston Cotton Exchange, he said regarding an investigation of railroad irregularities: "Enough has been ascertained to satisfy the most skeptical that their published rates have been disregarded whenever it suited their wishes, not considering the provision of the law as of any moment whatever." The great cause of grievance, he declared, was the fact that few had been favored at the expense of many. The people "see that the roads disregard the law and pursue any line of policy that may suit their views, hence the constant warfare between the people and the railroads." Such practices were hurtful to commerce and destructive of credit and confidence. The State Constitution requires railroad companies to maintain general offices within the State and prohibits the consolidation of parallel and competing lines. It also prohibits the consolidation of Texas roads with those 17 incorporated in other States. But poolings with outside roads were extensively practiced. Such combinations were used in most states as early as 1870 and in Texas by 1880. Poolings and combinations grew out of the efforts of railroads everywhere to put a stop to the keen competition that too many roads had produced. Such were the conditions of Texas railroads at the beginning of Ireland’s administration. Ireland, in his career as a member of the Legislature, had opposed some railroad measures sufficiently to win the title of "Ox Cart John." The railroad men had feared him as a candidate for Governor, though the Democratic party in its platform of 1882, had gone on record as favoring conservative legislation that would protect the rights of the people, without injury to 18 the rights of the corporations, yet Ireland’s personal views on the subject were not well known# During his candidacy he had so little to say on the subject that his position on the issue, at the time of his inauguration, was still unknown. However, it was soon evident that Ireland, like other politicians and statesmen of his day, did not want to do anything that would put a stop to railroad development. He appreciated the fact that railroads added much to the wealth and development of the State. The population was increasing rapidly, from 604,215 in 1860 to 1,591,749 in 1880, due to the great quantities of cheap lands that were being penetrated, advertised, and made available by the railroads. The railroad construction of 1881 and 1882 had added directly to the taxable values of the State over twenty million dollars. In his message to the Eighteenth Legislature, Governor Ireland took note of the fact that the constitutional requirements concerning railroad regulation had been only partially performed. He said, "It is not the work of an • hour, nor to be performed without mature study. These railroads are our institutions:: Their management has challenged and baffled the highest order of talent, and whatever is done, it is to be hoped will be done in the spirit of justice and equity, that will prove adequate to our wants, 20 without clipping or injuring the railways. But the Governor asserted that the people could not and would not contend for their rights when they were withheld by the corporations. ”1 therefore,” said he, "recommend that a commission of three (3) or more persons be appointed, in such manner as the Legislature may select, to take care of that subject. " Ireland was not the first Governor to favor the creation of a State Railroad Commission. The first suggestion regarding its creation was made by Governor Richard Coke, in 1876. At the time, a number of commissions had been created in the western states due largely to the general agitation for government railway regulation brought about by the "Grangers." 22 The first real fight in the Texas Legislature for a railroad commission came in 1881* The bill as introduced into the House provided for a Commission of Railroads and Telegraphs, to be composed of three members 23 to be appointed by the Governor for a term of two years. The Commission was to have power to fix rates and fares, to prevent rebates and discrimination, and to otherwise force the roads to abide by the laws and regulations of the government. This measure, which was a hard fought one, failed to pass chiefly because of the powerful lobbying of the railroad men who assembled in Austin and remained there until the measure was killed, and also because of the personal visit to Texas of Jay Gould and other New York railroad men 24 who arrived in the State while the fight was on. The fight for the commission was renewed in the Special Session of the Seventeenth Legislature, 1882, which was called, among other things, to pass necessary laws to require railroads in the State to be kept in good condition so as to render travel and transportation on them safe and expeditious, and to prevent abuses and unjust discriminations; to regulate freight and passenger traffic and to provide practical 25 remedies for the enforcement of such laws. Governor Roberts, by that time, had decided that such a body as a railroad commission would be unconstitutional. He urged upon the Legislature the creation of the office of an engineer, inspector or advisory commissioner, to inspect and report such wrongs and evils as might exist, so that the proper remedies could be adopted and applied for their 26 correction. Bills to establish a commission were introduced in both House and Senate, in spite of the Governor’s objections, but failed of passage# Thus stood the Commission situation in January, 1883, when the Eighteenth Legislature assembled for action. It takes only a cursory glance at the records of the Eighteenth Legislature, as shown by the Journals, to see that the members of that body were eager to comply with Governor Ireland’s recommendations concerning railroad regulation. Numerous bills dealing with the subject were introduced into both House and Senate, some to establish a railroad commission, others to prevent discrimination, while still others dealt with time schedules, posting of rates, etc. Judge A. W. Terrell, of Austin, took the lead in the Senate, as he had done in former sessions, in the fight for a commission, while Judge J. Q. Chenoweth, of Fannin County, led the fight in the House. Chenoweth introduced a bill that provided for the appointment of a board of commissioners for railroads. It prescribed their powers, duties, and salaries. It also established maximum freight and passenger rates. The bill fairly bristled with fines and penalties. The Galveston Daily News voiced approval of the proposed, measure in the following comment: Chenoweth’s bill caused the instant amalgamation, as if by electricity, of the railroad men, for the support of common defense. The measure is the most far-reaching in its scope, and at the same time the most conservatively guarded, of any ever introduced in the Texas The bill was considered by the conservative element to be too severe in its regulations, and if too strongly pressed it might be killed and so prevent any kind of legislation on the subject of railroad regulation. After many days of heated discussion, the Chenoweth bill was apparently about to be passed by the House when Speaker C. R. Gibson, of Ellis County, left the chair as the vote was ready to be taken and introduced a compromise measure, offering, instead of a Commission with large powers, a State Engineer with vague powers, whose duties should be to look after the physical condition of the roads. Though the substitute measure created a sensation in the House at the time of its proposal, it became a law, April 10, 1883. Speaker Gibson in defense of his substitute measure said: I have favored, during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Legislatures, legislation on this railroad subject. I have labored earnestly on it and tried to get through some measure which would answer what I conceived to be the demands of the people. I have seen, on two former occasions, bills similar to the one which we have discussed for several days, and the final result was the defeat of the whole measure.... There is a clear majority on this floor who have arrived at the conclusion that this house is not warranted under the constitution in creating a commission and in delegating to them the power to regulate freights and tariffs, to enact measures and to provide penalties as prescribed in the bill. The substitute which I offer provides for unjust discrimination and for the shipment of freight in which it is received. It compels railroads to keep their road-beds, tracks, switches, and bridges in repair; it provides further, for the inspection of roads at regular intervals of time by the state engineer. 8 "If Jay Gould, Vanderbilt and all the other railroad magnates had assembled in committee for the purpose of forming a bill, they could not have secured a measure more suitable to their interests and more damnable to the people,” 29 said Judge Chenoweth, in speaking of the Gibson substitute. Other members declared that the new law was not a compromise, but a surrender of the rights of the people. It was equivalent to no legislation at all. The law provided that a State Engineer should be appointed by the Governor subject to the approval of the Senate. He was to hold office for a term of two years, at an annual salary of #3,000. The engineer was not to be a railroad stockholder or in any way connected with or interested in the railroad business, yet he was required to be experienced in the construction and maintenance of 30 railroads.' In regard to the duties pertaining to the office, the law reads: The State Engineer shall perforin such duties as are now, or may hereafter be prescribed by law, and shall twice in each year, and at such other times as he may deem it necessary, carefully inspect the railroads in this State, and keep himself informed of the same, and manner in which they are operated, with the special reference to the safety and proper accommodation of the public, which inspection shall include the condition of road bed, track and bridges; character and condition of cars, station houses, platforms and other facilities incident to transportation business. Should such inspection indicate a non-compliance with the law on the part of any railroad, such non-compliance shall be presented in proper and official form to the Attorney General, who shall proceed to investigate and enforce penalty for dereliction, according to existing statutes, or as hereinafter provided. sl The Engineer was required to make an annual report to the Governor on all matters pertaining to his office and to offer suggestions for changes in the existing laws connected with the management and control of the rail- , 32 roads. The law also provided that changes on freight moving in the same direction should be uniform, and that railroads guilty of unlawful discrimination should be subject to a fine of $5OO which should be paid to the person or persons so injured. Goods were to be forwarded as received. The 33 three cent passenger fare was retained. Because of the urgency of the situation the law was to take effect immediately upon passage. James H. Britton, of Fort Worth, was appointed by Governor Ireland to occupy the office of State Engineer, and with the approval of the Senate, Britton entered at once upon the duties of the office. Just how effective the State Engineer law was can be answered best by the State Engineer himself, in his report to Governor Irelandr The State has now tried the experiment of State Engineer for about 18 months and the question naturally arises is it a success? From my observations and experience I answer emphatically, Not The act gives the State Engineer no power. He can inspect and persuade the railway companies but he has no power t© order and compel. He is confined entirely to the physical condition of the roads; has no authority to examine the books and papers appertaining to the operation of the roads. The State Engineer, under the present law, is nothing more than a road master in charge of maintenance of way. I respectfully recommend that the present office be abolished, and either have no railway department or enact a new law and give the party, whether you call it a railway commission or State Engineer, such power as will enable him or them to thoroughly investigate the railways in all their departments.' 54 Governor Ireland was not satisfied with the law, and readily concurred with Britton*s recommendation that the office of State Engineer be given more power or abolished. The inefficiency of the law was not doubted by anyone who had studied the railroad problems, asserted Governor Ireland in speaking of the situation to the Nineteenth Legislature. What efficacy there was in the law had been demonstrated 35 in the effort to execute it. The question of railroad regulation was one of the most important matters to come before the Nineteenth Legislature. The failure of the State Engineer Law and the recommendation that it be abolished led again to an agitation for a commission. While Governor Ireland did not renew his request for the commission, many bills bearing on the subject were introduced into both houses of the Legislature; but nothing was accomplished. Railroad men were there in force to exert all possible influence against state regulation. There was some dissension among the members of the Legislature over the railroad issue and a rift was made between 36 the Governor and some of his warmest friends over the question. The office of State Engineer was not repealed by the Nineteenth Legislature but the appropriation for its mainte-37 nance was not renewed in 1885 nor thereafter. The State Engineer resigned in April, 1885, 38 and since there were no funds for the office it was not refilled. The law was finally replaced by the commission law of 1889. Some railroad measures were passed by the Nineteenth Legislature, the most important of which was the law requiring all roads operating within Texas to maintain offices within the State. The law required the roads to open their books for inspection while the directors were required to hold one annual meeting at their State office. The law also required reports to be given to the Comptroller or to the Governor on the true status of each road, at least once a year • There was also a law passed empowering the Attorney- General to investigate and prosecute any railroad violating that part of the constitution which says that the officers of one road are not to act as the officers of a competing road and that Texas roads are not to consolidate with 40 foreign roads. The violations for this offense were considered so serious that the law was to take immediate effects The outstanding acts of combinations and poolings in Texas were committed by the Texas Traffic Association, The Missouri Pacific, and the Southern Pacific lines. The Texas Traffic Association was a combination of nine leading Texas roads and eight connecting roads lying beyond 41 the borders of the State. This Association was organized in 1885, with headquarters in New York City. The chief object of the organization was to eliminate competition between members of the Association, though the preamble to the articles of agreement stated that the purpose was to prevent extreme fluctuations in Texas rates, injurious alike to the public and transportation companies. The Association was controlled by an "Executive Committee" consisting of a member from each road. All rates for each 42 member road were to be fixed by this committee. The Texas Traffic Association, because of the practice of unfair discriminations, was seriously opposed in Texas and was prosecuted by Attorney General James S. Hogg in 1888 and dissolved by the Texas Supreme Court in December of the same 43 year. The Missouri Pacific system with headquarters in St. Louis, operated the Texas and Pacific, the International and Great Northern, Missouri, Kansas and Texas and their 44 branches and connecting lines. The directors were elected, officers appointed, and rates fixed in their offices in St. Louis. The famous Huntington lines controlling the Southern Pacific maintained their offices in San Francisco and New Orleans, an j fixed their rates in those cities. Such poolings and combinations were formed in order to prevent competition, but their practices of unfair discrimination to the merchants and shippers of Texas continued throughout Ireland’s administration. The Attorney General’s reports for the period show that no suits were instituted to break up such proceedings. Some of the railroad combinations were due, no doubt, to the "long and short haul" clause of the law of 1883 which forbade a greater charge for a short haul than for a similar 46 haul over a greater distance. This law was passed to prevent discrimination against certain towns of Texas. But the law was disastrous in its effects upon the business of the State, especially the cotton business which was concentrated at St. Louis, New Orleans and other centers. The roads from Texas points to s£. Louis and New Orleans reduced the interstate rates so low that the roads lying wholly within the State and therefore subject to the law could not compete with Cotton could be carried cheaper from Texas to St. Louis than it could be hauled between any two 48 Texas towns one hundred miles apart." It cost producers as much to ship from Dallas and Waco to Houston and Galveston as to ship to the eastern mills. A cotton factory at the town of Terrell made a common practice of shipping goods out of the State and then having them shipped back in again in order to take advantage of the cheaper outside 49 rates. Texas roads met the situation by forming connections with lines outside the State, example, the Texas Traffic Association. In an effort to protect the interests of the merchants and business men of the State, the Legislature of 1883 unwittingly worked an injustice to them. This was due to the fact that the Legislature was unable to regulate trade and commerce because its authority stopped with the borders of the State while the railroads and commerce were interstate in character. The proper management and regulation of the railroads was a difficult problem. The Governor and legislators recognized and appreciated the fact that the people expected them to do something about the situation, but it was difficult to formulate intelligent legislation on a matter so new and complex in character as the railroads. The question of railroad regulation was destined to challenge and baffle governors and legislators for years to come. 1 C. S. Potts, Railroad Transportation in Texas, 103. 2 Galveston Daily News, January 2, 1882. 3 Potts, Railroad Transportation in Texas, 43. 4 Railroad Papers, Report on Roads in Operation, 1882. Archives, Texas State Library. 5 Alex Hogg, ’’The Railroads as an Element in Education,” 10. 6 Colonel G. Gordon, ’’Railway Legislation,” 9. W. P. Gaines, Pamphlets, V. VII. 7 Report of State Engineer to the Governor, December 1, 1884. 8 John C. Brown, "Railroad Legislation,” 9. Gaines, Pamphlets, V, VII. 9 Report of State Engineer to the Governor, December 1, 1884. 10 Waco Examiner, January 11, 1885. 11 Potts, Railroad Transportation in Texas, 111. 12 Brown, "Railroad Legislation," 5, Gaines, Pamphlets, V, VII. 13 "Testimony Before Legislation Committee on Internal Improvement," 1883, p. 30. 14 Ibid. 15 Galveston Daily News, January 18, 1893. 16 Ibid. 17 State Constitution, Article X, Section 3. 18 Galveston Daily News, July 20, 1882. 19 Gordon, "Railway Legislation," 2, Gaines, Pamphlets, V, VII. — 20 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 474. 21 Ibid., 481. 22 Potts, Railroad Transportation in Texas, 116. 23 Potts, Railroad Transportation in Texas, 117. 24 Ibid. 25 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 388. 26 House Journal, 1882, p. 16. 27 Galveston Daily News, January 20, 1883. 28 Dallas Herald, March 10, 1883. 29 Ibid., March 24, 1884. 30 Gaxmnel, Laws of the State of Texas, IX, 373. 31 Ibid., 374. 32 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, IX, 374 ♦ 33 Ibid., 376. 34 Report of State Engineer to the Governor, December 1, 1884. 35 Texas Governors* Messages, 509. 36 Galveston Dally News, January 17, 1885. 37 ’’The Railway Commission Bill” Speech of Honorable H. D. McDonald Before the Texas Senate, February 25, 1885, 16. 38 Letter from J. H. Britton to Governor Ireland, April 1, 1885, Archives State Library. 39 General Laws of Texas, Nineteenth Legislature, 67• 40 Texas Constitution, Article 10, Sections 5, 6. 41 Potts, Railroad Transportation in Texas, 79. 42 Ibid., 80. 43 Potts, Railroad Transportation in Texas, 79. 44 Speeches and State Papers of James Stephen Hogg, 28. 45 Ibid. 46 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, IX, 374. * imi ii imi m h i.imu i..im «mri M — kmmmb <mmbmmm~mm.wmm ' 47 Potts, Railroad Transportation in Texas, 113. 48 Galveston Daily News, March 8, 1883. 49 Galveston Daily News, March 8, 1883. CHAPTER VII CHANGES IN THE STATE SYSTEM OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE OPENING OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY Governor Ireland’s administration was marked by important changes pertaining to public education in Texas. Probably no four years of the State’s history is characterized by greater progress in educational matters than those from 1883 to 1887. In 1883, Texas was suffering from the community system of public school management with its loose, ill-defined, shifting control and patronage. By 1887 the present educational system was well established with a State Superintendent at its head. The period also witnessed the opening and development of the State University. In order to understand more fully the significance of the changes made during those four years, it is essential to review briefly the State system of education prior to 1883. The foundation for our present system of schools was laid in 1839, when the Second Congress of the Republic set aside three leagues of land (13,224 acres) in each county for the beginning of a permanent school fund, and fifty leagues for the endowment of two colleges or universities." In 1840 a fourth league for each county was added for the support of schools. The State Constitution, 1845, imposed upon the Legislature the duty of making provision for the support and maintenance of public schools, and also the establishment of free schools throughout the State when practicable to do so. In order to furnish the means for their support, the Legislature was required to set apart not less than one-tenth of the annual revenues of the State, derived from taxes, as a perpetual school fund in addition to the 2 public lands. This fund was further added to by the Legislature in 1854. A special school fund was created through the purchase of {2,000,000 of five per cent United States Indemnity Bonds. The same Legislature provided for the immediate organization of common schools, with the State Treasurer as ex officio State Superintendent. Each county was to have a school board composed of the county judge and county 4 commissioners. Little was really accomplished though, due largely to the general apathy of the people and inattention of administrative officials. The Civil War, 1861 to 1865, completely disrupted the progress of public education and dissipated the funds. In an effort to encourage railroad building, §1,753,317 was loaned during 1861 and 1862, to railway companies, within the State; at the same time §1,285,327 was transferred to the 5 military board for conducting the war. The result was the complete depletion of the school fund by the close of the war. Private schools met the needs of the people after the war as they had done before. In 1860 there were twenty-five colleges in Texas with an enrollment of 2,416 students and ninety-seven academies with an enrollment of 5,916 pupils. By 1870 the colleges had decreased to thirteen and the enrollment to 800, while the academies had risen to 535 in 6 number with an enrollment of 22,276. The framers of the Reconstruction Constitution of 1866, realizing the need for a greater diffusion of knowledge, made provision for legislative establishment of a public school system at the earliest practical moment* As a basis for the endowment and support of the system all funds, lands, and other property previously appropriated or to be appropriated in the future were to constitute a perpetual fund for the education of white children* Provision was made for the increase of the land grant to include all alternate sections of land reserved by the State out of grants that had been made or that would be made at any future time to railroad companies or to other corporations* This marks the beginning of the large grants of land for the public schools of the State, which in 1883 amounted to 30,000,000 acres. A constitutional provision placed the control of all such lands in the hand of the 7 State Legislature. The Constitution required the appointment of a Superintendent of Public Instruction, with a four year term of office at a salary of not less than two thousand dollars. The Governor, Comptroller and Superintendent were to constitute a Board of Education which was to have control of the o perpetual school fund, and the common schools of the State. Little organization was accomplished from this legislation. In 1870, political control passed into the hands of the radical Republicans who established a new constitution for Texas as well as a new system of public education. The radicals deplored the fact that there was not a single statesupported school in Texas and, except for the New Braunfels Academy, not a public school building within the borders of the State. By means of the Constitution of 1869, the Republican party established a highly centralized system of education in Texas. The act of August 13, 1870 established the office of State It also laid the counties off into districts, with the county court comprising a board of school directors. Four months compulsory attendance was required of all children between the ages of six and sixteen 10 years. The schools were to be supported by funds derived from the following sources: 1. The income from the permanent school fund. 2. One-fourth of the annual revenues derived from general taxation. 3. A poll tax of one dollar on every voter between the ages of twenty-one and sixty years of age. 4. Local taxes of sufficient amount to erect necessary schoolhouses and to maintain a minimum four months school. 11 But the law of 1870 did not bring the desired results and was followed by the law of April 26, 1871. By that measure a very rigid school system was launched in Texas. The law created a State Board of Education to be composed of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Governor and Attorney General. It was the duty of the Board to establish and promote public schools; to examine and appoint teachers; to fix salaries of teachers; to select textbooks and apparatus for the schools; to define the course of study; and to prescribe the duties of the boards of directors for local The State Superintendent was the chief member of the Board of Education and, therefore, fixed its policies. The law gave the State Superintendent very extensive powers. He was to appoint, with the consent of the Governor, a school supervisor for each judicial district within the State, thirty-five in all. He was to gather statistics and keep records; make investments of permanent school funds and distribution of available funds; examine and approve all accounts for compensation of teachers or other local employees; and approve all contracts for buildings as well as plans and specifications for school buildings. The Governor appointed Jacob C. De Gress, a retired military officer of German origin, to put the highly 14 centralized system of public education into operation. This really marks the beginning of public education in Texas. The various constitutional provisions and laws prior to the law of 1871 had brought few results so far as actually putting into operation a working system of public schools. The scholastic population of the State numbered 229,568 in September, 1871. By December of that year 1,324 schools 15 were in operation with 63,504 pupils enrolled. By the scholastic year 1873-1874, the enrollment had increased to 102,451. But the people of the State were antagonistic to the system from the beginning. The compulsory attendance; the arbitrary methods of the Board of Education; the manner of employing teachers; the large number of supervisors; and especially the cost of the system, which reached as high as one cent per annum on an ad valorem tax on property, made it very unpopular. It became the ''infamous school system" to officials and people alike. $o great was the opposition that it was difficult to get accurate information on taxes, 16 census, buildings, and other school matters. This system was destined to a short existence, for it was completely undone with the return of the Democrats to power in 1873. The framers of the Constitution of 1876 abolished the offices of State Superintendent of Public Instruction and district supervisors; they also eliminated compulsory school attendance and the county district system of organization. The free school age was reduced to the ages from 8 to 14. The county school lands, which the Constitution of 1869 had placed in the care of the legislature, were returned to the counties. Provision was made for the school fund to include all lands', funds, and other property formerly set aside for the schools, all alternate sections of land appropriated to the railroads, and one-half of the entire public domain. In all, this amounted to about 45,000,000 acres. The Constitution further provided that all funds from the sale of school land and other sources should be invested in United States or State bonds. The Governor, Comptroller and Secretary of State were to con-17 stitute a Board of Education. In compliance with the constitution, the Fifteenth Legislature, 1876, completely reorganized the public schools. What is known as the community system came into being as a result of the deliberation of that body. The program was based on the principle that parents rather than the State should be responsible for the education of the children. The school community replaced the county district. The school system thus created was just the opposite of the radical organization of 1871. It gave the people the benefits of state school funds with a minimum of state interference. There were no restrictions placed on the number of children necessary to constitute a school community. There were, however, serious drawbacks to the system. Since there were no definite boundaries for the school community, no local taxes could be collected. No permanent buildings could be erected due to the reorganization of the community every year. A new board of trustees had to be chosen annually. The system did not lend itself to progress, but to petty bickerings and jealousies, and such instances as two different communities insisting upon the use of the same 1 o school house at the same time were not at all uncommon. The enrollment and expenditures increased under the system, but there was no permanent advancement. The average length of term was less than four months, no schoolhouses were built, and teachers were almost wholly lacking in preparation for their work. In 1879, the retrenchment policy of Governor Roberts brought a school crisis. Because of the extravagance of the radical regime, the State was struggling under a heavy debt. The law of 1876 provided that one-fourth of the annual State revenues should go to the available school funds, but due to the heavy indebtedness and to the growing dissatisfaction with the community system, Governor Roberts vetoed 19 the appropriation for the public schools. This action brought the school question to a head. Complaints became general, investigations were made. There arose a demand for a constitutional amendment which would enable the legislature to make some necessary changes in the system. Governor Roberts in his message to the Seventeenth Legislature declared that great discontent had been expressed, and justly, against the lack of organization and the waste of funds in 20 the public schools. The need for the reorganization of schools had become a live issue by 1880. In that year every party in the State--Republican, Grange, Greenback, and Democratic made 21 platform demands for public school reforms. The Democrats declared that maintenance of a practical system of public free schools was of the utmost importance, and to that end they favored the largest appropriation, within Constitutional limits, justified by the financial condition of the State. In compliance with public sentiment, the Seventeenth Legislature introduced and earnestly discussed some amend-22 atory measures for the school law.~ No important changes, however, were made in the public school organization by the Seventeenth Legislature. So chaotic and disorganized was the school system that the secretary of the Board of Education, 0. N. Hollinsworth, in his report to the board for the year 1882, stated that of the 166 counties where schools were maintained in 1881-1882, only 127 county judges and 123 county treasurers sent in reports. Of the forty-five towns and cities having control of their own schools, only 23 thirteen sent in reports.'"’ But in spite of defects in organization, inadequate financial support, and poorly equipped teachers, public schools were gradually gaining in favor and supplanting private schools. Such a change was largely due to the unremitting toil of Secretary Hollingsworth in bringing school needs before the people; to the influence of the Texas Journal of Education, initiated in 1880; and to the increasing preference of teachers for public schools. In the chapter entitled Issues Before the People in 1882, I have given considerable attention to the position and importance of public school needs as expressed by party platforms, political leaders, and the press during the gubernatorial campaign of that year. I shall not go into that again except to repeat that the whole problem had come to be one of much moment to the leaders of the State, and that conditions were ripe for constitutional changes in the public school system of Texas. Governor Ireland, in addressing the Eighteenth Legislature, declared that the preservation of the school fund and the improvement of the school system were questions that would challenge the attention of the administration. He indorsed the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution which would permit the legislature to levy and collect a necessary school tax. He favored an amendment which would permit of some form of investment of permanent school funds other than Federal or State bonds, especially since Federal u 24 bonds were selling at $l4O, making them undesirable as an investment* The question of limiting the investment of school funds to Federal and State bonds was one on which Governor Ireland’s opinions were very decided. He devoted much attention to it during the campaign and also placed much emphasis upon it in his recommendations to the Legislature* As a result of public agitation, the Eighteenth Legislature, April 7, 1883, proposed the first amendment to the Constitution of 1876. The amendment was accepted by the people and became the basis for future educational progress in Texas. It favored the district school system and the right of voting local taxes where the people so desired. By means of the amendment the following sources of revenue were provided: 1. One-fourth of the revenue derived from the State occupation tax* 2. A poll tax of one dollar on all voters between the ages of twenty-one and sixty. 3. An ad valorem tax of such an amount, not to exceed twenty cents on the SIOO valuation, as, with the available school fund arising from all other sources, would be sufficient to maintain and support the public free schools of the State for a period of not less than six months in each 25 year. In compliance with the desires of the people as voiced in the approval of the amendment of 1883, Governor Ireland in proclamation to the special session of the Eighteenth Legislature, January, 1884 recommended the following changes in the management of the public school system: 1. The establishment of the office of State Superintendent of Education either by election or appointment, with such powers and duties as might be prescribed by law or the Board of Education. 2. That counties be divided into convenient districts which should be as near permanent as possible so as to encourage the erection of permanent school buildings. 5. That provision be made for more rigid examination of teachers. 4. To provide for the establishment of district school boards who were to have the general management and control of the school. 5. The passage of a law that would forbid the payment of teachers until reports had been made to the constituted 26 county authority. The Eighteenth Legislature, in a document of great length and detail, completely rewrote the State school law, which went into operation without the Governor’s approval. The law was largely the work of the Honorable Benjamen M. Baker who was appointed secretary of the Board of Education at the beginning of Ireland’s administration. The salient features of the law were as follows: 1. A State Superintendent of Public Instruction was to be elected to have general supervision over all public schools of the State and the administration of the school law. 2. Local taxation was authorized up to twenty cents on the JIOO valuation, provided two-thirds of the tax payers voted for the tax. 3. All counties except fifty-three were to be divided into school districts. Those fifty-three counties were to be allowed to have districts and communities. 4. The scholastic age was to be from eight to sixteen. 5. Separate schools were to be maintained for whites and blacks but each race was to receive its pro rata according to scholastic census. 6. No part of the public school fund was to be appropriated to or used for the support of private schools. 7. Schools funds were to be invested in county or other bonds, thus enlarging the means of steady investment of the permanent fund, a policy strongly advocated by 28 Governor Ireland." 8. Certification of teachers was provided for and maximum salaries were fixed. The maximum salary for a teacher with a first grade certificate was to be $75 a month. 9* The county judge was to have immediate supervision of all matters pertaining to public education in his county. 10. Instruction was to be given in the English language. 11. All teachers were required to keep daily registers of attendance and to make monthly and term reports on such subjects as might be required by the State Superintendent. 12, The available public free school fund for any one year might be used for the erection of a school building 29 or to add room to an overcrowded building* " No doubt the establishment of the office of State Superintendent was the most significant step in the advancement of education in Texas made by the law of 1884* Under the radical regime, the State Superintendent had been given large powers, but from 1876 to 1884 the work of the office had been performed by the secretary of the State Board of Education. With the adjournment of the Legislature, Governor Ireland appointed the secretary of the Board of Education, Benjamen M. Baker to the office of Superintendent. In November of the same year, he was elected to the office which he held until January, 1887. Superintendent Baker was a strong advocate of the district system as a permanent State establishment. He was forced, though, to tolerate in many counties continuation of the community system which was considered by the people to be the only system adapted to sparsely settled counties. Eighty-four counties came at once under the operation of the district system, but in many of those counties no effort was made by the local authorities to levy the local school tax allowed by the - 30 law. According to Superintendent Baker’s report the estimated scholastic population had grown from 238,000 in 1880 to 489,000 in 1886, while the school funds had increased from $750,000 to about $2,350,000. But he himself declared that the reports were so unreliable that no one knew whether the population was 350,000 or 500,000, or whether the actual resources were $2,350,000 or $3,250,000. A few examples are cited to show how inaccurate and unreliable the reports were: The tuition cost of Webb County was between $2O and $2l per month, while in Hopkins County it was 14 2/3 cents per month. Red River, with a scholastic population of 4,085, had an average daily attendance of 199,583, while Runnels County had an average daily attendance of 152 and a total daily attendance of only 192. Grayson County, with a scholastic population of 6,832, had an average daily attendance of only 56, although she had 102 schools; and Shelby, with a population of 2,051, had an average daily attendance of 34. Superintendent Baker promulgated many Important rulings and definitions most of which were sustained by the Board of Education. That Texas made advancements, under his administration, in matters pertaining to a system of State supported public schools is evidenced by his report to the State Board of Education in 1886: Notwithstanding many serious difficulties have attended the administration of the public schools during the two scholastic years just ended, I am gratified to be able to report that the cause of popular education has steadily advanced, the schools have become more efficient, and the general public is better satisfied with the results attained. It is gratifying to know that opposition to free schools has almost been silenced and that the demand of our people isthe most perfect system consonant with our condition and resources. The original advocates of public schools have won many to their ranks, and the few who are still classed among the objectors have accepted the situation and now only desire that the public fund be used to the best possible advantage.... The law of 1884 was a vast improvement on that of 1876, and I am convinced that the people are ripe for the other changes demonstrated to be necessary, and that the time has arrived for making them.•.. Among the improvements made in our system I may mention as the one of greatest Importance "the district system" which has been provided for a large number of counties.... Under it local taxes may be levied, and thus a fund raised for building purposes, for lengthening the school term and extending the scholastic age. The districts have defined limits: the place for the school is fixed. The people knowing that no change of locality can take place, are encouraged to erect comfortable buildings and supply them with modern furniture and apparatus. The State has the best reason to be proud of the progress of her teachers. I attribute their advancement in a large way to the fact that the recent changes of school law have encouraged them to become professional teachers.s2 Superintendent Baker called attention to a number of matters that needed consideration and revision such as legislative definition of a sectarian school and the prohibition of religious instruction in the public schools; also a more careful enforcement of the law requiring schools to be conducted in English, a matter which was not being complied with as a number of schools were conducted in German and Spanish. He stressed the imperative necessity for local supervision vested in a county superintendent, since county judges were not interested in nor fitted for the work of local school supervision. He declared that secondary education should not be furnished at the expense of the State. He maintained that the teacher’s certificate law was unsatisfactory and needed revision. The apportionment of the available school fund was a source of annoyance and needed correcting by requiring counties to return any unused funds to the State treasury at the end of each year. He suggested that the State make appropriation for the much needed repair and improvement of Sam Houston Normal Institute together with the building of two new normal schools. He also urged greater uniformity in textbooks, and the removal of the office of State Superintendent from the control of the State 33 Board of Education. The Constitutional Amendment of 1883 followed by the complete revision of the school laws firmly established the public school system of Texas. Governor Ireland in his message to the Twentieth Legislature, January 11, 1887, declared that steady improvement in the free school system was in progress. Expenditures for the common schools had more than doubled in the four years. In 1882, disbursements amounted to f 1,103,425, while in 1886, they amounted to $2,326,226.25. This sum was exclusive of the University, Agricultural and Mechanical College, and the two normal 34 schools. The advancement of public education, for many years, was slow but it has been steady since 1884. The principle that the State is the guardian of its children was laid down by the law of 1884. Though such an idea was not accepted by the leaders of the day, it has come to be generally accepted since. A discussion of the advancement of public education in Texas during Ireland’s term as Governor cannot be complete without some attention being given to the development and open-’ng of The University of Texas which is the crowning head of the State’s system of public education. The institution opened its doors for service to the people of Texas September 15, 1883. Classes were held in the capitol rooms until the west wing of the Main Building was sufficiently 35 completed for occupancy, January 1, 1884. v The beginning of the permanent fund for the University dates back to the appropriation of the fifty leagues of land that were set apart for the endowment of two colleges or universities,’' in 1839. A second endowment was made during the administration of Governor E. M. Pease, 1854. One-tenth of the alternate sections of railroad land was set aside for the University. This act, however, was never put into force and a grant of one million acres was sub- 37 stituted therefor by the Constitutional Convention of 1875. In 1858, one hundred thousand dollars in United States bonds were appropriated to the University, while an act providing for its establishment was passed by the same Legislature. The Civil War, however, not only prevented the fulfillment of the law but caused the diverting of the funds to war purposes. To make good that loss the Legislature, 1866, appropriated $134,768.62 of Confederate bonds, of doubtful 38 validity, until legislative action in 1883 made them good."' The Legislature of 1866 also provided for the organization of two universities, one of which was to be styled "The East Texas University,” but due to the congressional reconstruction of the State, 1867, the organization was never attempted. Nothing further was done toward the establishment of the institution until the Constitutional Convention of 1875 took up the matter and wrote into the Constitution of 1876 provisions for the University. According to that Instrument, the Legislature, as soon as practicable, was to organize and provide for the maintenance, support, and direction of a university of the first class, to be located by a vote of the people of the State, and styled "The University of Texas." ‘ The Constitution provided that all lands and other property previously set apart for the establishment and maintenance of the University, together with the proceeds of sales of the same, should constitute a permanent university fund, except for the one-tenth of the alternate sections of land granted to railroads by the legislative act of February 11, 1858. That grant, as I have previously stated, was replaced by one million acres of the unappropriated public domain which was to constitute a 40 permanent endowment for the University. The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, established by legislative act, April 17, 1871, was declared a branch of the University, while provision was made for a colored branch to be established by legislative action at some future date. Austin was selected as the location of the University by a vote of the people under the act of March 30, 1881, 41 with Galveston as the location for the medical branch. The law also provided for a Board of Regents which was to have complete charge of the administration of the University. In 1883, the University was further endowed by action of the Eighteenth Legislature. One million acres of land, in addition to all former grants, were set aside to further increase the permanent endowment for support of the This land, which was later surveyed and located in Tom Green, Andrews, and Martin Counties, was almost a desert and for many years was practically worthless in the matter of adding to the permanent fund of the University. The management of all the University land grants was retained by the State rather than placed in the hands of the Regents of the University. The lands were a prey to the "free grass" system which prevailed so extensively in the cattle regions of the State. The wisdom of State control of the land was often questioned. For example, many persons criticized the action of the State Land Board in refusing to allow the Regents to lease 600,000 acres of University lands at five cents an acre because the Board had established the minimum price of six cents an acre. The University suffered much because of the State’s indifference to its interests. The public schools rather than the University were becoming the "hobby of Texas politicians." In 1883, the Regents were offered $1,350,000 for the first million acres of land donated to the University, but they had no authority to ac~ 44 cept it and the Land Board did not. From 1883 through 1885, only 14,400 acres of University lands were sold, while 42,080 acres were By 1888, the total amount leased. of the two million acres, was 77,437 acres, only a little more than one-thirtieth of the University lands as compared to one-fifth of the school lands. So slowly were the University lands leased that the Land Commissioner, in 1888, recommended that they be turned over to the Regents for administration. The fact that the University lands were, for the most part, without permanent water and were remote from the population 46 had something to do with the failure to realize a rapid return from their lease. The permanent endowment of the University in 1884 consisted of bonds, land notes, and lands. The University held the following State bonds: 4 per cent State bonds .......$ 620.00 5 per cent State bonds 144,891.63 6 per cent State bonds 178,000.00 7 per cent State bonds ....... 200,000.00 Total State bonds •••..••• $523,511.63 The annual interest on those bonds amounted to $31,949.38. The total in land notes was $106,810.00 with interest $9,238.20. The total income for the University was $47,552.54. The cost of the erection and equipment of the main building was $150,000 besides that needed for the medical branch and the colored branch. The greatest problem which the University faced during this early period was that of funds for operating expenses. There was no appropriation made by the Eighteenth Legislature, in 1883, from the general revenues of the State for the support, establishment, and maintenance of the University, while the branch, the Agricultural and Mechanical College at Bryan, received a general appropriation of $30,000 for 1883 and $lO,OOO out of the University fund for 1884# The total appropriation for the University was $5,000 to be used in surveying and designating the million acres for the 48 permanent fund. No appropriation from the general revenues for University support was made in 1885, while the Agricultural and Mechanical College again received $20,000 from the general revenue and $lO,OOO from the University 49 available fund. ' The University was so embarrassed for funds during this period that the Comptroller, in order to lift the institution from a situation that threatened its very existence, and also to enable it to move forward to fill the destiny for which it was founded, transferred $86,950.94 50 from the permanent fund to the available fund in 1883. This transfer, which caused much discussion as to its constitutionality, was a heroic remedy to save the institution when its very life was threatened for the lack of funds with which to operate. The University, at’ this time, was "beset with other difficulties besides financial support. The final establishment of the University was not due to any one man, nor even to any one hundred men, but to the wisdom of the people of the State, declared Governor 0. M. Roberts in his discussion of the establishment of the institution. While the infant University had many friends and supporters, it also had many powerful enemies. ”What will we do with the State University?” was a question often asked by the legislators, by the press, and by the people. So light was the patronage, in 1885, that it was termed by many the ”Austin High School.” Out of the enrollment of one hundred thirty, Austin furnished sixty-51 nine. An able faculty had been secured at heavy expense, but with so few people taking advantage of the instruction offered, it was estimated that it cost the State about $l2OO a person. Many leading citizens of the day believed that the State was not ready for the University. Through the press unfriendly opinions were frequently voiced. For example, the Clarksville Standard in speaking of the management of the University made the following comment: All thoughtful citizens who have comprehension of such a subject know that the attempt to start such an institution in completeness when this was started was absurd. The scholars had not been educated sufficiently or in sufficient number to afford food for such an institution.... All intelligent people of the State are able to see now that the university was pushed forward prematurely, for the double purpose of furnishing positions to decayed professionals and to create a tub mill for Austin. It has answered that purpose, but has answered to no good purpose for the State, which is- really discredited by claiming as a State university, a mere collegiate institution in which not a single professor has a reputation that would draw a scholar from a distance, or confer credit upon a university proper.sB The University had to struggle not only against public indifference but against the direct opposition of the private school interests of the State. From Waxahachie, the seat of Trinity University, came the following comment, 1885, in regard to the University: The University of Texas has been a perplexing problem to the legislature during the present session and its solution is in doubt yet. It has a faculty formidable in numbers whose salaries equal those of the governors of most of the States, and a stranger would be led to suppose that at least 1000 students waited upon their instructions, but such has not been the case since it was inaugurated, 150 being about the largest at any time, while the average attendance has fallen considerably below that number. Besides a numerous faculty a board of regents is kept on handsome pay to look after the interests of the institution, whose chief duty seems to be to visit the capital at stated times, and inquire after the health of faculty and students, and be entertained generally in fine style.s3 The rivalry between the University and its branch, the Agricultural and Mechanical College, was keen from the earliest history of the University. Each institution had its ardent friends and supporters in the Legislature. The Nineteenth Legislature, 1885, gave much concern to both institutions. Such questions as Regents’ control of University lands, placing the management of the University under control of the State Board of Education, and appropriations for both institutions drew the attention of the legislators who tried to effect some legislation, but without much success. There was much bandying of high flown oratory between the two rival camps, a veritable battle in words over the relative virtues of the two institutions* When the Agricultural and Mechanical College was given a SIO,OOO appropriation from the University funds in 1885, the Galveston News, friend and supporter of the University, came out with a long article entitled "Gauging the University" with a sub-caption like this, "University money Wanted for Piggeries, Cowsheds, Dude Farmers, and Esthetic Butter- Makers." The News declared that the agricultural department of the College with $13,000 of equipment, had only two students in the senior class and only fourteen in the second and third classes. The Nineteenth Legislature, 1885, gave some consideration to the possibility of turning the Agricultural and Mechanical College into the colored branch of the University, provision for which had been made by the Constitution of 1876. It was thought advisable to make that school into an agricultural and mechanical branch for the negroes, while the literary and other departments should be transferred to the main University at Austin. It was suggested that the Federal land grant endowment to the Agricultural and Mechanical College might through congressional amendment be transferred to the colored branch together with the buildings and equipment. Such a move would necessitate a vote of the people, since Austin had already been chosen as the seat 56 for the colored branch.' The Agricultural and Mechanical College fight against the University in the Nineteenth Legislature was led by State Senator George Pfeuffer, President of the College Directory. The College asked for an appropriation of a hundred thousand dollars, a considerable part of which was 57 to come from the University fund. Following the demand for a large appropriation for the Agricultural and Mechanical College, Senator Pfeuffer introduced a hill into the Legislature entitled "An act to perfect the University of Texas," which if it had been adopted would have closed the doors of the University. The bill proposed to place the management of the University under the State Board of Education. It also proposed to establish a series of district colleges over co the State that were to act as feeders for the University, and to divide the funds among all the proposed branches. The bill attracted much attention in the Legislature, but was finally defeated. Governor Ireland was not considered a friend of the University. He expressed a preference for the common schools and considered them quite sufficient for the State to provide. He seemed to have favored the district college idea. In his address at the University June Commencement, 1884, Governor Ireland, however, gave expression to a more favorable attitude toward the University: A good deal has been said about an antagonism between the free schools and the University. I do not think there is any, and there should not be. The man who attempts to array the one against the other is a friend of neither. There is room for both if wisely managed.... The great question to be solved is: How and where are students to get their education to fit them for the University? There are a few high schools in Texas.... There might be created in each congressional district a school of high grade, placing them as near the poor young men and women as possible. These could be under the patronage of the University, or may be a free school system proper. This, declared the Governor, was only a suggestion in lieu of nothing better. Governor Ireland, who had not favored opening the University in 1883, claimed that he did so out of the best interests for the University, and from no spirit of hostility to the institution. In addressing the Twentieth Legislature, January 11, 1887, Governor Ireland declared that the University, though in its infancy, was on a permanent basis; that the faculty was an excellent one; and that he looked forward to the time when the children of the State would crowd the walls of The GO University of Texas. 1 H. P. N. Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, 11, 134. 2 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, 11, 1297 • 3 Ibid., 111, 1461. 4 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, 111, 1461-1465. 5 F. Eby, Development of Education in Tex as, 150, 151. 6 'Eby, Development of Education in Texas, 154. 7 G&mmel, Laws of the State of Texas, V, 882-885. 8 Gawie 1, Laws of the State of Texas, V. 884. 9 Ibid., VI, 287-288. 10 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, VI, 288. 11 Ibid., 291. 12 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, VI, 960. 15 Ibid., 959-962. 14 Eby, Development of Education in Texas, 161. 15 Ibid., 161. 16 Eby, Development of Education in Texas, 162-168. 17 Constitution of the State of Texas , X, Article VII. 18 Second Biennial Report of the State Board of Education for the years ending August 31, 18'79 and 1880, p*~. 19 Eby (compiler), Education in Texas Source Materials, 733-740, 20 Eby (compiler). Education in Texas Source Materials, 757 » 21 Ibid., 773-776. 22 Texas Journal of Education (editorial), 1880-1882, I, June, 1581 . ~ 23 The Third Biennial Report of the Board of Education for the scholastic years ending August 31, 1881 and 1882, p. 7. 24 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 479. 25 Gamine 1, Laws of the State of Texas, IX, 440. 26 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 494. 27 ’’Superintendent Baker f s Administration,” in the Texas Review, I, 707. 28 With the change in the law permitting the investment of the permanent school fund in county bonds, the State Comptroller began immediately the purchase of such bonds* In his biennial report, November 1, 1884, p. 8, he gave the following list of investments in county bonds: Six per cent bonds $1,154,548*93 Seven per cent bonds 47,750.00 Eight per cent bonds 400,750.00 yielding, in interest, an annual income of. ........... 104,622.93 His report for 1886, p* 32, shows investments in county bonds as follows: Six per cent bonds $1,445,725.00 Seven per cent bonds ....... 52,000.00 Eight per cent bonds 503,350*00 Total $2,001,075.00 29 Gaimnel, Laws of the State of Texas, IX, 570-589» 30 „ "Superintendent Baker’s Administration," Texas Review, I, 708. 31 Fifth Biennial Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the scholastic years ending August 31, 1885 and August 31, 1886, p. 11. 32 Biennial Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the Scholastic years ending August 31, 1885, and August - 31, 1886, pp. 5-6. 33 Biennial Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the scholastic years ending August 51, 18^5, and August 31, 1886, pp. 8-21. 34 Texas Governors * Messages, 549. 35 J. J. Lane, History of The University of Texas, 248. Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, 11, 134* 37 0. M. Roberts, "A History of the Establishment of the University of Texas” reprinted from the Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association for April, p. 234. 38 Ibid., 235. 39 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, VIII, 811. 40 Ibid., 812. 41 Lane, History of the University of Texas, 249. 42 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, 71. 43 Lane, History of the University of Texas, 79. 44 Ibid., 80. 45 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 501. 46 Lane, History of the University of Texas, 83. 47 Report of the Board of Regents of The University of Texas, December, 1886, pp. 6-7. 48 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, IX, 433. 49 Ibid., 741-742. 50 "Instability of University Funds," Texas Review, I, 229-230♦ 51 Dallas Herald, January 15, 1885. 52 Galveston Daily News, March 25, 1885, copied from the Clarksville Standard. 53 Galveston Daily News, March 25, 1885, copied from the Waxahachie Enterprise. 54 Galveston Daily News, March 10, 1885. 55 Galveston Daily News, March 4, 1885# 56 Lane, History of the University of Texas, 59♦ 57 Ibid., 55. 58 Lane, History of the University of Texas, 13. 59 Lane, History of the University of Texas, 13-14. 60 Texas Governors T Messages, 550. CHAPTER VIII THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PRISON SYSTEM No issue has been more consistently and continuously before the government of Texas than that of the management of the prison system. The question, what to do with the prisons and the prisoners, was a prominent one in the gubernatorial campaign of 1882. Governor Ireland’s administration marks the end of the lease type of prison control, with entire absence of State responsibility, and the beginning of the transition to complete State management of prisons • T The prison problem of Texas dates from Reconstruction days following the civil War. The “crime wave" of that period not only increased the number of criminals within the State prisons but increased the difficulty of their control. The framers of the Constitution of 1868, in order to shift the problem of prison management, created a lease system for the institution based on the following provisions: 1. The Governor was authorized to lease the penitentiary with the labor of convicts to private parties for a term of not less than five years, nor more than ten years. 2. The penitentiary was to be managed according to the laws of the state, except that the lessee was to prescribe the kind of work for the convicts. 3. The lessee was to bear all expenses of whatever nature, constructing necessary additional building, feeding, clothing, guarding, and caring for the convicts. 4. The State was to turn over to the lessee all tools, machinery, and equipment belonging to the penitentiary system. The first lease was made in 1871, when legislative action required the Governor to lease the penitentiary to the highest bidder for a term of not less than ten nor p more than fifteen years. By the terms of this lease, which was executed for the maximum number of years, the state relinquished all control of the prison, retaining only the right to maintain State prison inspection and investigation of mistreatment of prisoners. The execution of the lease proved most unsatisfactory• The records show that escapes rose from fifty in 1871 to 4 three hundred eighty-two in 1876, few of whom were recaptured. The State did not assume the responsibility of capturing escaped prisoners and it was not profitable to the lessees to do so. Therefore, many of the worst convicts escaped, thus increasing crime. The death rate of prisoners also greatly increased, due no doubt to inadequate medical attention, bad food, and insufficient clothing. But in spite of such losses, the prison population increased so rapidly that the lessees were forced to sublease the men to planters, brick manufacturers, tanners, and railroad contractors, with the spread of convict camps, inspection became more difficult, while abuses increased at such a rate that the Crovernor was required to revoke the lease. A second permanent lease, for fifteen years, was contracted January 1, 1878. Under its terms the lessees agreed to pay the State three dollars a month for each prisoner and to feed, clothe, guard, and care for the convicts and meet all other operating expenses of the prison. 5 Conditions under this lease were no better than under the first one. complaints soon became so general that the Seventeenth Legislature, reflecting public sentiment, passed April 24, 1879, an act providing for the organization of the State penitentiaries, and the regulation of the manage- Q ment of the convicts therein. This law was a very elaborate piece of legislation promulgated for the purpose of improving the condition of the convicts. It created a Board of Directors for penitentiaries, composed of three men, to be appointed by the Governor. The Directors were to meet three times each month and report their findings to the Chief Executive. The law also granted the Governor, all executive and judicial officers of the government, and members of the Legislature the right to be admitted freely to the 7 penitentiary to observe the operation of the institution. The Board of directors, which existed for two years only, was replaced by the penitentiary Board, created by the Legislative Act of March 17, 1881. The Board was composed of the Governor, the State Treasurer, and the Superintendent of the State penitentiaries.® This body was to have the general management of the penitentiaries and all other penal institutions within the State. The government though was unwilling to assume the responsibility of managing the prisons; therefore, the laws of 1879 and 1881 provided for the continuation of the lease system. However, since the lease of January 1, 1878, was not a satisfactory one, it was revoked November 29, 1882, and a new lease executed to take effect January 1, 1883. But the lease system had so many opponents and was so thoroughly condemned by the press that the new administration in 1883, felt constrained to take action on the matter. Governor Ireland, during his campaign, had favored placing the convicts within the penitentiary walls where they might be taught trades. In his messages to the Eighteenth Legislature, he assured that body that it would be necessary for the law-making power to prescribe the proper management of the prisons, thus pointing out that he expected legis- Q lative revision of the recent lease." The .Legislature, after prolonged discussion, revoked the lease of November 29, 1882, and paid the lessees the sum of $59,444.98 and, as further compensation to the lessees, purchased their farm near Huntsville with all its equipment for the sum of $21,000. By law enacted April 18, 1883, future leasing of the penitentiaries was prohibited.^ 0 The law also required all prisoners to be confined within the walls as soon as suitable prisons and employment could be provided. The law empowered the Penitentiary Board to 11 purchase farms to be operated by prison labor. This action of the Eighteenth Legislature received general public approval as was evidenced by the following editorial; In the record of the Eighteenth Legislature, no chapter can be more illustrious than that which has been inscribed by the action of this body on the State prison and convict problem. The overthrow of the leasing system, which was gradually developing into a vast parasitic growth, and threatening to become an over-shadowing influence in legislation, in executive councils and in current politics, was no ordinary victory. It was not only a victory for humanity and civilization, and for true principles of penalogy, but for the dignity and fair repute of the people»s legislative and executive representatives, and for the purification and elevation of current politics in their bearing upon public measures and public men. Texas has reason to be proud of legislators whose conscience and convictions, and whose discernment and statesmanship, and courage of statesmanship, rose at the critical moment to the height of the occasion and the achievement of the victory. On May 15, 1883, the State resumed control of the penitentiary system and by so doing entered upon what is known as the contract lease system of prison management which finally developed into complete State control • In an effort to find employment within prison walls, the Penitentiary Board was forced into paths not laid out by the Legislature. The shops in the Huntsville prison gave employment only to about one-fourth of the prisoners© The iron foundry, at Husk, which was just being opened, was expected to furnish work to a large number of men, but even then, the two prisons together could only take care I of about half the convicts. No appropriation was made for extra buildings and equipment needed if the Board was to comply with the terms of the law. To meet the emergency, the Board decided to lease the shops within the walls at Huntsville to private operators, who would employ the convict labor. Convict laborers above what could be used in the shops were leased 14 to plantations, mines, quarries, and railroads. Because of the uncertainty as to labor conditions within the shops and an adequate return, it was difficult to find men who would lease them, consequently that part of the business went slowly* By November 1, 1884, contracts had been made for only two industries within the walls at Huntsville both employing something over a hundred men at 15 the rate of sixty cents a day. 4 The business did not prove profitable, however, and by 1885 practically all industry within the walls had ceased, due to the unskilled type of labor and general economic depression of 1884. The employment of men on the outside went easily at first, and was profitable to the State, but the depression and the decline of railroad construction within the State curtailed the demand for such labor. The result was greatly to increase the expense of the State through the necessity 16 of supporting these idle men within the walls of the prisons. The husk prison, which was a most unfortunate business adventure for the State, was first opened for business in 1883. The prison site was located in 1870 in order to develop the iron ore found in that section of the state. The prison was equipped with an iron furnace which the Penitentiary Board leased on July 10, 1883, for a period of ten years, to begin January 1, 1884. The State was to furnish one thousand convicts to be used in operating the 17 penitentiary and the industries connected therewith. In addition, the State was to furnish all officers, guards, and clothing for the inmates; while the contractors were to feed the convicts, keep the buildings in repair, and pay the State at the annual rate of one hundred dollars for first class hands, seventy-five dollars for second class hands, and fifty dollars for third class hands. The contract was considered a very desirable one for the State, but the contractors soon found that they were unable to employ all the men in the operation of the furnace and undertook to work them on cotton farms near Rusk. The Board immediately put a stop to that type of work, however, since the contract forbade the use of convicts on cotton farms. The contractors then asked permission to reduce the number of men to five hundred, which request was granted by the Board. The furnace was started the latter part of February, with disappointing results. Instead of the expected daily yield of twenty-five or thirty tons of iron, it yielded only about eight or ten tons. The operators contended that the fault was in the construction of the furnace and got permission to rebuild it. Four months were consumed in the reconstruction of the furnace, operation was resumed September 1, 1884, and five days later the company surrendered its contract and was released by the Board. The contractors were in debt to the State the sum of $25,000 which was met by the acceptance of materials and supplies 18 which the company had on hand at the prison. Such was the experience of the first year’s operation of the Rusk prison• Prison conditions had not improved under Government management;. it was one of the problems that the Nineteenth Legislature, 1885, felt forced to consider, and yet the Legislature was almost hopelessly divided on the issue. Some members preferred to let penitentiary matters stand as they were, keeping as many prisoners within the walls as possible and leasing the rest out to railroad companies, farmers, and others who desired them. Others favored the issuance of a $1,000,000 in bonds at for the purpose of building a railroad from the penitentiary at Rusk to Athens, a distance of seventy-five miles, where a junction with the Texas and st. Louis Railroad could be made. The supporters of the railroad scheme proposed the building of two new 19 penitentiaries along the new route. It was believed that the railroad would also benefit the Huntsville Prison, since the international had a monopoly on the carrying trade for that institution and charged such enormous freight rates that the managers felt it was almost worthless to ship prison products to market. Another faction wanted the surplus convicts to be employed in developing the quarries of Burnet, the State to offer for sale the product of their labor. Still another group wanted to return to the lease system and make as much profit as possible out of the ... 20 criminals. The Legislature found it difficult to work in harmony on the prison problem, so great was the diversity of opinion, on January 25, 1885, a legislative committee was appointed to investigate the management, operation, and conditions in the penitentiaries, and make suggestions for 21 their future management. The investigation began at Huntsville, February 10, 1885. The committee found a total of 2,700 convicts, 640 at Huntsville, 465 at Rusk, 182 on 22 railroad trains, and the balance on farms various situated. The following recommendations were suggested by the committee: 1. That appropriations be sufficient to place the iron furnace at Rusk on a self-sustaining basis. 2. That industries similar to those at Huntsville be installed at Rusk. 3. That appropriations for the maintenance of the penitentiaries be made. 4. The purchase of agricultural land on which to place those convicts who could not be used within the walls. 5. The abolition of the Penitentiary Board, placing the management of penitentiaries in the hands of a superintendent who should be subject to removal by the Governor, also the retaining of the financial agent. 6. Appointment, by the Governor, of a commission of three persons to inspect prisons in the United States. 7• The appointment of a separate Superintendent and Financial agent for each prison. 8. Executive clemency to be extended to a certain number of life term prisoners each year. There was a difference of opinion, however, within the committee over the situation at Rusk. A minority group doubted that the Rusk furnace could ever be placed on a paying basis for the following reasons: 1. The ore was inferior in quality, with no coal accessable. In order to secure charcoal timbered lands would have to be purchased by the State. 2. Means and facilities for transportation were very limited. There was only one railroad and that a narrow guage between Rusk and the rest of the State. 3. There was no limestone within a hundred miles of Rusk. 4. The water supply was very deficient and to secure the needed amount would entail great expense. 5. The furnace was in such a dilapidated condition that appropriation of from $50,000 to $70,000 would be 23 necessary to put it in repair. The committee reported that the management of Rusk penitentiary was especially bad, that the treatment of prisoners was extremely cruel with merciless whippings 24 frequently administered* The unfavorable report on the management at Rusk brought the immediate resignation of J. G. Searcy and Walter Tips, the two commissioners of the Penitentiary Board and the refusal of Governor Ireland to serve as Chairman of the Board. The situation was highly critical with the resignation of the Board; the complicated prison system was left without a head, since the superintendent was largely a clerical official directed by the Penitentiary Bo ar 5 For some time the prison situation was a cause of much concern and dissension among members of the Legislature and between the Legislature and Governor Ireland, who because of the Legislative report in the work of the Penitentiary Board left the evolving of a new system of management entirely to the But that body could not agree upon a plan of government for the penitentiaries, since the members were hopelessly divided on what action 27 to pursue. After weeks of heated discussion and much ill feeling, the Legislature appropriated funds for the support of prisons. In addition to the proceeds of convict labor, $75,000 was added for operating expense of the two prisons. In order that the prisons might be more adequately equipped for successful operation of the industries within their walls, a sum of $75,000 was provided for the purchase of needed materials. The Legislature proposed to revive the iron works at Rusk and, therefore, appropriated $50,000 to pp restore the furnace to working order. ° The action of the Legislature in making an ample allowance for developing the penitentiary industries and operating the prisons amounted to an endorsement or vote of confidence to the work of the Governor and the Penitentiary Board, for the Board had asked for appropriations in order that conditions in the prisons might be improved. The Legislature, March 31, 1885, in an effort to improve the management of the prisons, amended the act of the Eighteenth Legislature which required the Penitentiary Board to consist of the Governor and two commissioners of State Penitentiaries to be appointed by the Governor, with 30 the consent of the Senate. The new law provided that the Penitentiary Board should consist of three commissioners of State penitentiaries, to be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The commissioners were to hold office for two years and receive six dollars a day and traveling expenses while attending the duties of the office. ~ Provision was made for the appointment of a financial agent for the penitentiaries, at an annual salary of $3,000. According to the law, the Board was to confine all convicts within the walls as soon as suitable prisons could be provided for their confinement and employment. The law was to be effective immediately, since the prison system would be without a director until the new board was established. 32 In compliance with the new law, Governor Ireland appointed a former member of the old Board, Walter Tips as chairman. The other members chosen were 0. C. Dibrell and Galen Crow. John T. Dickinson was appointed secretary to the Board, while the superintendent of penitentiaries, 33 Thomas J. Goree, was retained in that position. With the $50,000 appropriation as a basis for operation the Board undertook to develop the iron industry at Rusk under State management. An expert from Philadelphia was employed to make a thorough examination of the furnace and other conditions and advise the Board as to procedure. After a thorough investigation, he pronounced the furnace plant well equipped, the ore supply abundant and of good quality, with plenty of charcoal available. His opinion was that iron could be manufactured cheaply. He assured the Board that there was only one disadvantage and that lay in the fact that Rusk had only one railroad and that a 34 narrow gauge. Acting on this advice, the Board prepared to operate the furnace. After numerous changes and much delay, it was blown in November 30, 1885, and kept in blast until January 10, 1886, when the charcoal supply was exhausted. The run was fairly successful, with an average daily yield of about twenty-six tons of iron of acceptable quality. The furnace was blown in again in July, 1886. To utilize more profitably the product of the furnace, a pipe foundry was installed. In 1887 the foundry turned out the castings for the new capitol, the contract for which had been secured October 26, 1885. Brick making was also tried out at Rusk, but because of the high cost of transportation it proved unprofitable from the beginning. One important drawback to the successful operation of the Rusk prison was the lack of railroad facilities• The Huntsville prison, at the close of 1886, had 508 convicts connected with its industries. The three principal industries within the walls, wagon shop, cabinet shop, and machine shop and foundry, were operated on State account. All lease contracts but one had been surrendered. In the fall of 1884, because of the depression of business, the failure of contracts, etc., the State found itself with a large surplus of convicts at both prisons and no means of providing employment for them. Among the number was a large group of negroes who were incapable of being employed within the walls . These men were let out on share to farmers for a period of three years. Later white convicts were let in the same way except for one year. This type of employment proved unprofitable to the State and very serious for the white men who were not suited to work in the river bottoms. But the share farm system continued in use until 1910. Although it was not a radical departure from the contract system and not profitable, it did, nevertheless, bring some relief from the worst abuses of the former system. The convicts were no longer driven in a trot to and from the fields or forced to eat the noon meal in the field. The farms were worked on the shares and the income divided between the State and the farm owner. In 1883, the State began, in a small way, the State farm prison unit which has become the most important branch of the entire prison system. In 1910, the total value of the farms was $2,400,000, a sum far in excess of 38 all other combined prison investments/ In 1883, when the Huntsville lease was revoked, the State found it necessary to purchase a farm near Huntsville from the lessees. In 1885, the Legislative committee for prisons investigation recommended the purchase of farms for the employment 39 of convicts. The Harlem plantation project was entered upon in 1885. This farm, located near Richmond, Fort Bend County, contained 2,500 acres of Brazos bottom land with about 1,000 acres in cultivation. The farm also had extensive improvements, such as sugar house, sugar mill, cotton gin, tenant houses, wagons and teams. It was bought for $25,000. The purchase of the Harlem farm was the first of the twentyone large farms which accommodate seventy-five per cent of the prisoners today. Governor Ireland endorsed the establishment of a House of Correction in order that juvenile offenders might be removed from the penitentiaries. That need was an urgent one. In 1882, the superintendent of prisons had urged it in his report to the Penintentiary Board. The superintendent pointed out the fact that of the 1,653 new convicts recived in two years, twenty-seven were under fifteen years of age and two hundred four under twenty years of age. The Governor urged it in his communications to the Legislature in 1883 and again in 1885. A number of bills relating to the subject were introduced but nothing was accomplished during Ireland 1 s administration. Governor Ireland granted two hundred sixty-one pardons, remissions, and commutations in the first two years of his administration and two hundred eighty pardons from 1884 to 41 1886. The Governor, in speaking of his pardon policy, declared that some men were sent to the penitentiary for a day and in some cases only an hour. In such cases he never refused a pardon, for such a verdict in itself was a strong appeal for clemency, both on the grounds of justice and 40 economy. Others were pardoned because of their youth; some upon recommendation of prison officials, often because of hopeless disease. A large number were pardoned just before the expiration of their prison terms in order to restore them to the rights of citizenship, while a few were pardoned because of extra meritorious conduct. Governor Ireland gave much credit to good prison conduct in the exercise of executive clemency, with very good re-43 suits for the prisoners. The prison legislation of Ireland’s administration is largely responsible for the prison system’s being without a real head, even until the present time. The Governor is nominally at the head of the system, but he is far removed from the scene of prison activities. The Governor appoints nine penitentiary officials, namely, three members of the Board of Penitentiary Commissioners, a superintendent of the institution, a financial agent of the system, an assistant superintendent and an assistant financial agent at each of 44 the penitentiaries, and two inspectors for the system. The duties of these various officers are not clearly set forth by the law, so in their appointment there is a tendency to rely upon political influence rather than service performed. Membership in the Board of Penitentiary Commissioners is in effect an honorary position. The members are expected to give little of their time to the duties of the office, since they receive only six dollars 45 a day and traveling expenses while engaged in those duties. The problem of proper prison management was one of difficult solution. It remained in an unsettled condition throughout the period and was accompanied with much political agitation. Some wanted the convicts worked within the walls, others demanded that they should be worked outside, still others were willing that they work anywhere and at anything, just so the people were not taxed to support them. The prison controversy, perpetuated by these various conflicting points of view, has been brought down to our own day. From time to time changes have been inaugurated, but the State has failed to arrive at a consistent prison policy. 1 H. P. N. uammel, Laws of the State of Texas, VI, 30-32 • 2 Ibid., 916. 3 J. R • Reynolds, The Administration of the Texas Prison System, Thesis Manuscript, The University of Texas, 4 Carl Rosenquist, a History of the Prisons of Texas, Thesis Manuscript, The University of iexas~~TL7. 21. g Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, VIII, 1347. 7 Ibid., 1354. 8 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, VIII, 130. 9 Texas Governors* Messages, 472• 10 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, IX, 444 • 422. 12 Galveston Daily News, April 11, 1883. 13 Rosenquist, a History of the Prisons of Texas, 32. 14 Rosenquist, A History of the Prisons of Texas, 33. 15 ' Reports of the Sup er in t e nden t and Financial Agent of the ‘Jexas StaTe Penitentiaries Tor~~€wo years ending October 51, ’l^B4, pp. 7 -8. 16 Reports of the Superintendent and Financial agent of the Texas State years ending 0c t o’be r~3l' , “1884, pp. 40-41. 17 Ibid., 11. 18 Reports of the Superintendent and Financial Agent of the Texas State penitentlaries for two years ending October 31, 1884, p. 13. 19 Galveston Daily News, January 20, 1885. 20 Galveston Daily News, January 20, 1885. 21 Ibid*, February 20, 1885. 22 Ibid. 23 Galveston Daily Liews, February 20, 1885. 24 Ibid. 25 Galveston Daily News, February 21, 1885. 26 Texas Governors 1 Messages, 523. 27 Galveston Daily News, February 21, 1885. 28 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, IX, 742. 29 Galveston Daily News, March 24, 1885. 30 Gammel, Laws of the State of Texas, IX, 422. 31 Ibid., 707. *52 Ibid., 708. 33 Reports of the Supe ri n t endent and Financial Agent of the State Penitentiaries for two years ending October 34 Ibid., p. 12. 35 Reports of the Superintendent and Financial Agent of the State Penitentiaries for twoyears ending October 31,~T586 , p . IF. 56 Ibid., p. 14. 37 Report of the Supe ri ntendent and Financial Agent of Texas State Penitentiaries for two years ending October 31, 1886. 38 Rosenquist, A History of the Prisons of Texas, 78. 39 Galveston Daily News, February 20, 1885. 40 Ibid. 41 Biennial Report of the Secretary of State, December 24, 188T7 ~ 42 Texas Governors» Messages, V, 35, 43 Reports of the Superintendent and Financial Agent of the Texas State penitentiaries for two years ending october 31, 1886 . 44 Reports of the Superintendent and Financial Kgent of the Texas Penitent jari es for~two years ending October 31, 45 Our Penal System and Its Purposes, Reprint of a series of articlesi which were published in the Galveston and Dallas (Texas) News during the summer of 1960, p. 2. Conclusion John Ireland, though a man of little formal education, was not without the training and experience that fitted him for the office of Governor. His practice as a lawyer had been extensive and successful: his experience as a judge on the Supreme Bench had broadened his contacts; while his work in the Legislature had given him intimate knowledge of the most pressing problems of the day and prepared him for the political leadership to which he was elected in 1883. It is well to bear in mind that there are two branches of the government that direct the affairs of State and fix the policies of the administration —the Executive Department, headed by the Governor, and the Legislature. It is frequently the case that Governors and Legislatures do not work in harmony, when such is the case the Governor’s influence is greatly lessened. Governor Ireland, beyond any doubt, held the respect and support of a majority of the Eighteenth Legislature. The records show, however, that he did not hold such a position with the Nineteenth Legislature. The Governor and the Legislature clashed over the problem of the administration of the public domain, and Ireland felt it his duty to veto the land measure. The prison issue brought open conflict between the Governor and the Legislature, neither were their views in harmony on the question of the regulation of railways. Some of the problems that confronted Ireland in 1883 were seriously in need of solution and had been for some time. Ireland had studied the issues of the period and the policies of his predecessors in office; and in his inaugural address he set forth his program concerning those problems. Examination of his acts and later messages shows that he made no radical departure from his original views dealing with the issues which needed reform. Many of his policies were accepted by the Legislature and enacted into laws. The Governor’s recommendation that the payment on school. University, and asylum lands be extended to a greater length of time, in order to conserve those lands, became a law. His lease policy was also passed on favorably by the Eighteenth Legislature. His opinions on the investment of school lands were written into the law, while the school law was completely revised with some of the Governor’s views embodied. His recommendation for the establishment of a railroad commission failed to be realized. Ireland was only one of many who had come to accept the fact that a more systematic regulation of railways was much needed. However, the problem was a difficult one because of its interstate character and could not be adjusted at that time. Governor Ireland received his share of criticism, especially during his second term. No doubt he did make mistakes, but on important policies he showed broad views and comprehensive statesmanship. When we consider the difficulties that beset his administration, together with the varied and conflicting interests demanding legislation and executive action, we must recognize that his successes were greater than his failures. I repeat that Ireland was Governor of Texas at a very important period of its history. It was a period of transition, a period of building and development. The Railroads of the State were built. The agricultural resources were developed, and the foundations for its public institutions were laid. BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Manuscripts Governor Ireland’s State Papers, Archives Texas State Library. (This material is not important.) Land Commissioner’s Special Report, March 1, 1882. William C. Walsh, Land Commissioner, Land Office, Austin, Texas. Land Commissioner’s Report, September 1, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886. William C. Walsh, Land Commissioner, State Land Office, Austin, Texas. Railroad Papers, Archives Texas State Library. Official State Publications Biennial Report of the Superintendent and Financial Agent of the Texas State Peni rentiari es lor two years ending October '3l/ 1884. Austin, Texas (State Printer), 1884. Constitution of Texas, 1876. Fifth Biennial Report of the Superintendent of Public Instrue t ion for the scholastic years ending August 31, 'lBB5, and August 31, 1886. Benjamen J. Baker, Superintendent of Public Instruction. Austin, Texas (State Printing Press), 1886. First Biennial Report of the Board of Education for the scholastic years ending August 31, 1877 and~TB7B. Galveston, Texas (Galveston News Printing Press), 1881. Fourth Biennial Report of the Department of Education for the scholastic years ending August "31, 1583 and August 31, 1884. Benjamen J. Baker, Superintendent of Public Instruction. Austin, Texas (E. W. Swindells, State Printer), 1884. Gammel, H. P. N. (compiler): Laws of the State of Texas, Vols. I, 11, 111, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX. Gammel Book Company, Austin, Texas, 1898. Journal of the Senate of Texas , Regular Session of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Legislatures , Austin, Texas, January, and 1885. Austin, Texas (E. W. Swindells, State Printer), 1883 and 1885. Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Texas, Seventeenth, Eighteenth', and' NineteentTTTegisi'a tur es , Austin, Texas, January T 881; 1883; 18 BH. (E. W. Swindells, State Printer) 1881, 1883, 1885. Report of the Adjutant-General of the State of Texas, DecemTerT 1883 ; 1884 ;" . Austin, Texas (E. W. Swindells, State Printer). Report of the Attorney-General of the State of Texas for the year 1883 and "1884; 1885 and 1886. John D. Templeton, Attorney-General. Bound in Attorney-General’s Report, 1880-1906. Austin, Texas, State Printing Office. Report of the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas" for the fiscal years" 'l'B’B4; 1885"; 1186 • Austin, Texas’ *(E. W. Swindells, State Printer). Report of the Board of Regents of The University of Texas, Decemßer," 1886 . Bound, in Department^Reports, STate oT" Texas, 1886, Austin, Texas, State Printing Office. Reports of the Board of Regents of The University of Texas, 1882, Austin, Texas. Reports of the Board of Regents of The University of Texas, Austin, Texas, State Printing Office. Includes Regents Reports for 1883; 1884; 1885; 1986. Report of East Texas Penitentiary Board for the year ending BecemUer 3’l, 1880". Galveston, Texas, printed at the News Book and Job Office, 1881. Report of the Inspector of the Texas State Penitentiary, Located aT Huntsville, Texas,to the Governor of Texas, Submitted October 16, 1876, H. K. White, Inspector, Galveston, Texas (Shaw and Blaylock, State Printers), 1876. Report of the State Engineer on the Physical Condition of Railways * 1883 and 1884, Aus Tin, Texas (State Printing Office). Report of the State Land Board to Governor Ireland, January 1, 18135, Austin, Texas (state Printers’)'. Report of the State Land Board to the Nineteenth Legislature, January 1,1885, Austin, Texas (E. W. Swindells, State Printer), 1885. Report of the Superintendent and Financial Agent of the Texas State Peni tenti ari es for two years ending October 31, 1888, Aus tin, Texa s (Smith, Hick and Jones, State Printers), 1889. Texas Report of Board of Education for the years ending August 31, 1881 and TSsU,” Austin, Texas (E. W. Swindells, State Printer), 1883. Texas Penitentiary Report of the Commission Appointed by the Governor of Texas, April" 10, 1875, Houston, Texas (A• C. Gray, State Printer), 1875. Texas Reports, The Supreme Court from December, 1895 to June, 1896 . Reported by El Wilkinson, Vol. 89, published by Gammel Book Company, Austin, Texas, 1902. Magazine Articles and Newspapers Austin Statesman, files from 1882 to 1886, March 16, 1896, Ausbin, Texas. The Clarksville Standard, files for 1882, published at Clarksville, Texas• Dallas Herald, files from 1882 to 1885, published at Sa Has, Texas • Dallas Morning News, November 8, 1886; March 16, 1896, Dallas, Texas. Farm and Ranch, "The States Land Policy" (editorial). May 1, 1884, p. 8. Galveston Daily News, files from 1882 to 1886, published in Galveston, Texas. The Fort Worth Gazette, file for 1883, published in Fort Worth, Texas. The Roberts 1 Scrap Book, 1880-1895, newspaper clippings. The San Antonio Express, files from 1883 to 1884, published Tn San Antonio, Texas • Texas Journal of Education, ’’Amendments to the School System biscussed' by ‘tHe , Seventeenth Legislature” (editorial), 1880-1882, I, Austin, Texas Texas Review, Johns, C. R. and Sneed, S. G. (editors), Devoted to State Affairs, Transactions in the Departments of the State Government; and General Information of the Government, Institutions, Resources, Men, History, and Literature of Texas, Vol. I, September, 1885 to August, 1886, Austin, Texas (C. R. Johns and Sons). The Waco Examiner, files from 1882 to 1885, published in Waco, Texas. Pamphlets, Speeches, etc. Brackenridge, Major John Thomas, Evils of State Landlordism, n.p. Brown, John C., Railroad Legislation, Address of John C. Brown Before the Joint Committee of the Two Houses of the Seventeenth Legislature, found in W. P. Gaines, Pamphlets. Burke, J. (compiler), Texas Almanac and Immigrants Handbook for 1883, Houston, Texas (Printed and published by J . Burke), 1883• Cove, E. W., A Conservative Railway Policy is Justified, by the Interests of Texas an oT Ker hallways . Bound in Gaines, Pamphlets, Austin, Texas, April 15, 1882. Other Primary Materials Benedict, H. Y., A Source Book Relating to the History of The University of Texas: Legislative, Legal, Biblfographical, and Statistic a 1 / University of Texas Bulletin, October 10, 1917. Collections of the Archives and History Department of the Texas State Library Executive Series Governors 1 Messages Coke to Hoss, Edited Hy and For the Archive and Ills’tory Department of the Texas State Library, 1916. Eby, Frederick (compiler), Education in Texas Source Material, University of Texas bulleTin, April 25, 1918. Lane, J. J., History of The University of Texas Based on Facts and Records, Austin (Henry Hutchings, ’State PrThterTT WT" Raines, C. W. (editor), Speeches and State Papers of James Stephens Hogg, Austin, Texas TsUate Printing Company), 1905. Secondary Sources Books Biggers, Don H., From Cattle Range to Cotton Patch, Abilene, Texas (Press of the Abilene Printihg Company)’. Brown, John Henry, A History of Texas, 1685-1892, Vol. 11, St. Louis, Missouri (1. E. Daniel, publisher, printed by Becktold and Company), 1893. Burton, H. T., A History of the J. JU Ranch, Austin, Texas (Press of Von Boeckmann-J ones Company), 1928. Daniell, Lewis E., Personnel of the Texas State Government, Austin, 1887. Eby, Frederick, The Development of Education in Texas, New York (The Macmillan Company!, 192K1 Haley, J. Everetts, The XIT Ranch of Texas and the Early Days of the Llano Estacado/ Chicago - (The Lakeside Press), 1929. Hastings, Frank S., A Ranchman 1 s Recollections, Chicago (The Breeder’s Gazette), 1921. Historical and Bibliographical Record of the Cattle Industry and the~Cattlemen of Texas and Adjacent Territory, St. Louis (Woodward and Therman Printing Company), 1885. Holden, William Curry, Alkali Trails and Economic Movements of the Texas Frontier, 1146-1900, Dallas (Ihd Southwest Press )’ , 1930 • Holden, W, C., Rollie Burns or an Account of the Ranching Industry on the South Hains, Dallas, Texas (The Southwe s t Pre s s), 1932. Hough, Emerson, The Story of the Cowboy, New York (D. Appleton and Company), 1198. Hunter, John Marvin, The Trail Drivers of Texas, published under the direction of George W. Saunders, President of the Old Trail Drivers Association, San Antonio (Jackson Printing Company), 1920. Kittrell, Norman G., Governors Who Have Been and Other Public Men of Texas , hous ton, Texas (Dealy- Adey- Elgin Company, "publi s her s), 1921• Lang, Aldon Socrates, Financial History of the Public Lands in Texas, Baylor University, Waco ano “Dallas, Texas, VoIT’XXXX, July, 1932. Miller, E. J., A Financial History of Texas, Austin, Texas (University oT Texas Press), 1916. Newton, Lewis W., and Gambrell, Herbert P., A Social and Political History of Texas, Dallas, Texas TSouthwest fressT," — Paddock, Buckley 8., A Twentieth Century History and Biographical Record o f North and V/e s t Texas , Chicago, Illinois (Lewis’ Publishing Company) - /’IUOdT Potts, Charles S., Railroad Transportation in Texas, Bulletin of The University - of Texas, 1909. Webb, Walter Prescott, The Great Plains, New York (Ginn and Company), 1931. Winkler, E. W. (editor), Platforms of Political Parties in Texas, Austin, Texas (hulle tin of The tJniversity of Texas), 1916. Wooten, Dudley G. (editor), A Comprehensive 83. story of Texas, 1680 to 1897, V. 11., Dallas Texas (Published b“Wlliam G. Scarff), 1898. Wortham, Louis J., A History of Texas from Wilderness to Commonwealth, Vol. V, Worth, T ’ Texas (Wortham- Molyneaux )*, 1924 • Articles Havins, T. R., "The Passing of the Frontier in Brown County," West Texas Historical Association Year Book, June, 1932, ppi T3’-50, Abilene, Texas. Holt, R. D., "The Introduction of Barbed Wire and the Fence Cutting War," West Texas Historical Association Year Book, June, 1930, pp. 65 and V 9, Abilene, Texas. Holt, R. D., ’’The Saga of the Barbed Wire in the Tom Green Country, n West Texas Historical Association Year Book, Vol. IV, June, , pp. Abilene, Texas. Hubert, Harry, "First Barbed Wire Fence in Coleman County," Frontier Times, July, 1924, Bandera, Texas. Love, Clara M., "History of the Cattle Industry in the Southwest," The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XX, July, 1916*" to April,'T9T77 ppi 1-18, The Texas Historical Association, Austin, Texas, 1917. Thesis Manuscripts McArthur, Daniel E., The Cattle Industry of Texas, 1918, The University of Texas,lslB. Reynolds, James Robert, The Administration of the Texas Prison System, The University of Texas, 19^5. Rickard, J. A., The Cattle Ranch Industry of the Texas South Plains, The University of Texas, • Rosenquist, Carl M., A History of the Prisons of Texas, The University of Texas, 1925.