USA > Texas > Governors who have been, and other public men of Texas > Part 6
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30
55
AND OTHER PUBLIC MEN OF TEXAS
CHAPTER IX.
The successor to Governor Davis was Richard Coke of Waco. The State Convention met in Austin in, I think, September, 1873. I am writing entirely from memory, and may fall into error.
I do not recall who the contending candidates for Governor were besides Judge Coke, except I know Colonel John R. Baylor was one, and I believe, Hon. John Ireland.
I know Colonel Baylor was, because county after county voted for him, and the name Baylor was heard so often as the call of counties proceeded, that it looked, or sounded rather, as if he would poll a large aggregate vote, but his total vote was only 36. After the nomination had been made I said to him: "Colonel, your frontier friends stood by you." He said: "Yes, I got votes over a big territory, but the d-d Injuns have killed all my constituents." The Baylors, John R. and George W., were men out of the ordinary. All the Baylor family I ever knew or ever heard of were musical, and John R. and George W. were no exception to the rule. Both played the violin like non-professional Paganinis.
It used to be said they were "fiddlers and fighters," but the last word of the epigram is calculated to create an unjust im- pression, for they were not brawlers or hunters of trouble, but were gentlemen of unquestioned courage.
John R. Baylor was a large, brawny man, tall and muscular, and who must have been physically very strong. George W. Baylor, who died in the recent past, represented El Paso county in the Legislature just before his death. He was a tall, slender, light- haired man of quiet and unobtrusive demeanor. My impression is that the Baylor and Chilton families were related by consan- guinity.
When I was a boy I saw the courage of John R. Baylor tested He commanded a regiment in the Confederate Army, and on his way back home at the "break up" had to drive through Huntsville, where the State penitentiary was then, and (the main prison) is still located. Thousands of soldiers were returning wearied and dispirited and were in a mood for almost any kind of adventure. Clothing for the army had been manufactured in large quantities in the prison, and the belief was prevalent that but small part of it reached the soldiers, and the belief, whether founded in truth or not, inflamed their minds fiercely, so several hundred returning home gathered around the prison intending to seize a lot of cloth and clothing.
The financial agent was a nervy old fellow, and refused to sur- render any of the cloth that was in his keeping, and the crowd opened fire on the building and into the doors, but fortunately hurt on one. Boy like, I got up as close as I dared, to see the fight. Colonel Baylor happened to be in town, as I have already said,
56
GOVERNORS WHO HAVE BEEN
on his way to his home. I remember he wore a long linen duster. He went up to the front of the building and made a simple, straight-forward talk to the angry soldiers of a disbanded, or at least, disbanding army. He told them that they had made a splen- did record in the war, and should not mar it by seizing the prop- erty of their own State. His words were sensible and conciliatory, but many of the besieging crowd were not in a mood to be reasoned with.
The Colonel soon realized that fact, and when it appeared that his appeal had been made in vain, he put his hand on his big ivory-handled six-shooter and said:
"I'll be d-d if you rob your State. I will protect her prop- erty," or words to that effect. The action was one of the highest degree of boldness-far bolder than it was prudent. No man but one of the highest type of courage would have dared attempt it. The State was not robbed. Men in a crowd, however numerous, or however inflamed with passion, are going to be slow to at- tempt to overcome the resistance of even one resolute man. No one of the crowd wants to lead. That crowd that day was no exception to the rule. Those angry men, who, under normal con- ditions, were law-abiding citizens, saw what manner of man was confronting them, and every man knew that if they opened a fight, some one or more would be killed, so they withdrew.
I have been told that the father-in-law of George W. Baylor ran an auction house, or perhaps brought goods through the blockade into Houston during the war, and at the "break up" had a large supply on hand in a building on Congress Street, between Main and Fannin, and he was told the disbanding and demoralized soldiers purposed to loot it.
He was naturally alarmed, and barred and barricaded his store and appealed to Colonel G. W. Baylor for a guard. Colonel Baylor's regiment was stationed near Houston, and it is said he picked fif- teen men out of it, went to the store, removed the bars and barri- cade, and opened the doors and put five men in each door and stationed himself just outside. By that time quite a crowd, pre- senting a threatening aspect, had gathered. He quietly, and with- out bluster or bravado, said: "Now, if anybody wants to rob this store, let them begin." Nobody began.
George W. Baylor was an actor in that lamentable tragedy-the killing of General John A. Wharton, in 1865 in Houston, just as the Confederacy was collapsing. The army was in a state of de- moralization, as the men saw the end had come, and discipline was impossible. I was not old enough to know much about the tragedy, and as my father lived at that time on his plantation, we got papers irregularly.
General Wharton was, as I remember, Commander of Cavalry on the Trans-Mississippi Department, and was a gallant soldier of
57
AND OTHER PUBLIC MEN OF TEXAS
an historic family. As I recall, the trouble began over some mili- tary matters, and it was said General Wharton called Colonel Baylor a liar, and he (Colonel Baylor) went to the headquarters of General Magruder in the old Fannin Hotel, to complain of the language General Wharton used towards him-his inferior in rank.
While he was there, General Wharton came in and the trouble was renewed. It was clamed General Wharton struck at General Baylor with his sword. Whether that was true or not, I do not know, but whatever the facts were, Colonel Baylor killed him in the twinkling of an eye. He was indicted and the trial created great public interest, but he was acquitted. It was a deplorable tragedy. Both men were gallant soldiers and gentlemen born to the purple. It was difficult to believe that if General Wharton was in a normal state of mind, he would have struck at any man with the Baylor blood, because he knew the Baylor family, who like the men of the Wharton family, would not receive an insult, much less a blow, without resenting it, if need be, to the death.
At such a time as that when a nation was falling and armies were disbanding and hopes were perishing, and sorrow filled every soul, the minds of men were not normal, and much must be pardoned to such conditions and environment.
The reader, most likely, has concluded that I have forgotten the convention and the nominee, Judge Coke, but I have not.
As I said in the beginning of these disjointed and desultory sketches, I had no plan or orders of procedure marked out, but would jot down memories as they recurred to me, and the Baylor brothers deserved all I have said. They fought Indians on the frontier and stood guard over the thinly settled lines of pioneers who gradually pushed back the frontier, and opened the marvelous realm of West Texas to civilization.
The time I have referred to at Huntsville and the time John R. Baylor was a candidate for Governor were the only times I recall ever having seen him, and I recall how much he amused me at Austin when he said: "I made it a rule on the frontier whenever I met an Injun to cross him over Jordan and ask no questions."
At Austin in 1873 it may be said there began the political career of Richard Coke, which closed when nearly twenty-two years later he retired from the United States Senate, after eighteen years of service.
Future developments showed that no better selection could have been made. It is not meant by this statement to refer to his ad- ministration, which was able and progressive, but the reference is more directly to the way he met and solved the problems which confronted him before he was inaugurated. The situation re- quired coolness, courage, and the sternest resolution.
Thousands of Texans recall how Governor Davis refused to sur-
58
GOVERNORS WHO HAVE BEEN
render the office and appealed to President Grant, who was in the second year of his second term as President. Governor Davis based his refusal to surrender the office on a decision of the Supreme Court.
A Mexican named Rodriguez was charged with voting twice at the election in 1873. By habeas corpus the case got before the Supreme Court, and the Court held that the election was illegal because, instead of being held for four days, it was held only for one day. As I recall, the Legislature had changed the four-day election law. I never read the decision until I got to this point in writing. Life is too short to waste it over such judicial (?) lit- erature. The rule of construction adopted was such that the Court will go down in the judicial history of Texas as the "Semi- colon Court."
The sobriquet "Semi-colon Court" applied to the Court which rendered the decision in the case, Ex Parte Rodriguez had its origin in this way:
Section 6 of Article 3 of the Constitution of 1869 reads as fol- lows :
"All elections for State, District and County officers shall be held at the county seats of the several counties, until other- wise provided by law; and the polls shall be opened for four days from 8 o'clock a. m. until 4 o'clock p. m. of each day."
The Legislature on March 31, 1873, passed an act, the 12th sec- tion of which reads as follows:
"That all elections in the State shall be held for one day only at each election and the polls shall be open on that day from 8 o'clock a. m. to 6 o'clock p. m."
The Court quoted a provision of the Constitution (Sec. 3, Art. 5) reading: "The Supreme Court and the Judges thereof shall have power to issue the writ of habeas corpus and, under such regula- tions as may be prescribed by law, may issue the writ of man- damus, etc.", and said it had construed that the different clauses were separated by a semicolon.
Just here I will say that I have not examined the section of the Constitution of 1869, but the section as quoted in the report dis- closes no semicolon. But assuming it is used in the Constitution, as the Court states, I will set forth what the Court said it had held in construing that section. They held (they say) that while the constitution gave us original jurisdiction in habeas corpus, the clause must be so construed, that our jurisdiction in mandamus was only appellate and must be regulated by law.
They cited another section of the Constitution which they say was separated by a "semicolon."
They said further that in Section 6, Article 3, there was a plainer separation of the clauses (supposably they meant by a semicolon)
59
AND OTHER PUBLIC MEN OF TEXAS
one of which is subject to a limitation or condition, while the other was not.
That the legislature has the power to provide for holding elec- tion at other places than the county seat; (here they used a semi- colon) but it is equally clear that the Constitution is mandatory, and that the legislature has no power to limit the time within which the elections must be held.
The Court laid down the following proposition in grammar, but not claiming any special learning in that sphere, I do not assume to say whether it is correct or not :
"Neither will the rules of grammar nor of good composition admit of a proviso or condition, placed at the conclusion of an an- tecedent clause, applying to the subsequent clause of the sen- tence."
By the method of reasoning above set forth (whether it is sound or not, I leave to the reader to determine) the court concluded that the legislature had no power under Section 6, Article 3, of the Constitution to enact a law for holding elections for only one day, therefore the law was unconstitutional, null and void, hence there was no valid election held, and it being no offense to vote twice, or any other number of times at an invalid election, the Mexican Rodriguez had committed no offense; therefore there was no authority for his arrest, and he was ordered discharged.
The proceeding as a whole presented some novel features. The State's counsel were contending that the Court ought to discharge the prisoner because his guilt of voting twice had not been proved, and because it was a fictitious case, and argued that the Court had no jurisdiction because the case was one purely politi- cal.
On the other hand, counsel for the Mexican insisted in the Court retaining jurisdiction and determining the question whether the Mexican should be held to trial. The assumption seems jus- tified that if they had no assurance how the case would be de- cided, they had a strong belief on the point.
The three judges were put in what would appear to have been a very embarrassing position, since their official existence was in- volved in the result. If their decision was observed and enforced Governor E. J. Davis would hold over, and they also. If it was decided there was a valid election he and they went out together. The decision was wholly ignored, and the plans to hold the gov- ernment formed by the Republicans were knocked into "smither- eens" by Dick Coke and his followers, and Mr. Justice Walker, who wrote the opinion and rested the determination of the future of a great state on a "semicolon" was forced to hike himself back from whence he came, and these parts have known him no more since that memorable day, when Republicanism perished and passed in Texas.
60
GOVERNORS WHO HAVE BEEN
The Democrats paid no attention to the decision, and prepared to take over the office of Governor, and all other offices. Gov- ernor Davis evidently believed the Federal Government would come to his assistance, and he had many precedents in other states on which to build that belief, as the Federal administration had in these days, no compunction about overthrowing a state government for the benefit of the Republican party.
Governor Davis summoned the militia and the state police and prepared to resist. Governor (to be) Coke prepared to overcome the resistance, and made the selection of Major George Bernhard Zimpleman who, I believe, was the sheriff of Travis county, to aid him and direct his forces. Major Zimpleman had been a Terry Ranger, and that being said, it is needless to add, could be depended on to do his duty, and help his people. President Grant disappointed Governor Davis by refusing him military aid, and without such aid, resistance was useless, and Republican rule passed in Texas.
President Grant's reply, when read between the lines, meant that since Governor Davis had been in office, and the Republican party had been in power for nearly four years, yet the people had repudiated them at the polls, he would let Texas work out her own salvation politically, and settle her own troubles, and that he was tired of being called on to interfere where he had no business to do so.
Governor Coke was promptly inaugurated, as he told me at Gal- veston on his way to Austin, he would be. I expressed to him the fear that he was going to have trouble. He replied with that de- liberation of speech, and his unmistakable and characteristic lisp; "You come to Austin in about two weeks and I will be in the Gov- nor's office,"-and he was.
61
AND OTHER PUBLIC MEN OF TEXAS
CHAPTER X.
If the question were put to me: "Who, in your judgment, was the ablest man, intellectually, ever connected with the Government of Texas?" I would answer without hesitation, "Richard Coke." The general run of people-the common mass-are prone to speak of men whom they think possess ability as "smart" men, and smartness is, in their minds, always associated with the gift of eloquent, or at least, ready and easy speech. Any fluent, verbose stump speaker is much more apt to win the title of a "smart man" at the hands of the shallow and superficial. than is a man of the highest order of intellect who is not dowered with the gift of ready and eloquent speech, yet some of the ablest men and greatest statesmen America has ever produced, were poor public speakers.
The combination of a high order of intellect, a handsome per- son, and an eloquence of speech is rare. Texas has furnished that combination in two men, and, remarkable to say, they were United States Senators at the same time-Joseph W. Bailey and Charles A. Culberson.
Richard Coke was not handsome in person, graceful in carriage, or gifted as a public speaker, but he had a mind like a machine, inexorably logical and capable of deep research, and he had the integrity of Aristides and the courage of Caesar. I do not mean to convey the impression that he was in any sense a rough diamond. He was born a gentleman, and was a graduate of William and Mary College at Williamsburg, Virginia. All of the family I have ever known were educated gentlemen. I met in Richmond, Virginia, a few years ago, his brother who survived him, but who has, since I saw him, died. He was a lawyer of ability and retired from the practice with a competency. Two nephews of Governor Coke are among the ablest lawyers in Texas. The Cokes are descended from a Virgina ancestry, and the true Virginia gentleman is the highest type of man ever fashioned by the hand of the Divine.
I do not recall that I had ever heard of Judge Coke until he was a candidate at Austin in 1873.
When he became a member of the Supreme Court in 1866, I was but a boy, and did not take much interest in courts or judges, and after he was removed by military edict in 1867, he remained in private life until he emerged as a candidate for Governor in 1873. He was, I believe, for a short time, district judge, in 1865.
He was a man of sublime courage, combined with great intel- lectuality. While, as I have said, he had none of the graces of an orator, he could use his pen with great cleverness and power. His opinions in the cases in 29th Texas of Culbertson vs. Cabeen, in- volving the law of attachment; Cleveland vs. Williams, the law of sale of personal property, and O'Connell vs. Duke, the question of
62
GOVERNORS WHO HAVE BEEN
"more or less," in sale of land, have so far as I know never been criticised, much less overruled. It was a somewhat strange co- incidence that in O'Connell vs. Duke he was passing on a case which one of his colleagues, Hon. George W. Smith, had tried as judge in the court below, and tried correctly, for he was an able lawyer.
Governor Coke took official action on one occasion which brought down upon his head a severer measure of criticism and condemnation than has ever been heaped upon any Governor of Texas since. I do not undertake to set forth every incident re- lated with absolute accuracy of detail, but only in summarized form.
As I recall, the legislature voted a subsidy of $6,000,000 in State bonds to the I. & G. N. Railway to promote the extension of the line of that road to Austin and San Antonio. Exactly how far west of Palestine it had reached at the time I do not now remem- ber, but there was no line of railroad across the lovely stretch of country between Austin and San Antonio, and as I recollect, the only line of railroad into Austin was the present branch of the Central from Hempstead, and that was at that time a compara- tively recent acquisition for Austin. Possibly the G. H. & S. A. Railroad had reached San Antonio from Houston.
Naturally, the people of Austin and San Antonio and all the country between and surrounding the two cities were eager for a railroad, and the passage of the subsidy bill was hailed with wild acclaim. Governor Coke made no statement with reference to it, and the constitutional limit of ten days was nearly at an end, when Hon. George Clark, at the time Attorney General under ap- pointment of Governor Coke, went to see him about the matter, as Judge Clark told me himself. He called Governor Coke "Dick," as there was only three or four years difference in their ages. He told me he said: "Dick, what are you going to do about that sub- sidy bill?" The reply was, "I am going to veto h-1 out of it," and he did veto it with such vigor and logic that passage of it over his veto was impossible.
He told the legislature that it had no power to vote taxes on, or fasten a debt upon, the whole people for the benefit of a part, or for the benefit of any railroad, however pressing the need for ad- ditional transportation facilities, or however much the road might promote development of the country it would penetrate. He put the veto mainly on legal and constitutional grounds, and his argu- ment was as unanswerable as a proposition in mathematics. When the veto was read to the legislature and the news got to the people, there was, if such a phrase be permissible, neither levity or pro- fanity being intended, h-1 to pay.
The people of Austin and San Antonio were wild with rage, and exhausted the vocabulary of denunciation, to which "Dick" Coke
63
AND OTHER PUBLIC MEN OF TEXAS
paid about as much attention as he did to the breezes of spring which caressed the roses in the yard of the Capitol.
I do not state the result on the popular mind of the veto on my personal knowledge or information, but base the statement on the authority of two such men as the late Fletcher S. Stockdale of Cuero, and the late William P. Ballinger of Galveston. All who knew these two men will, with one accord, agree that I could produce no worthier witnesses. Judge Ballinger and Governor Stockdale were warm personal friends.
I trust that I may without too great interruption of my story, digress just at this point to explain why Judge Ballinger was called Judge, and why Governor Stockdale was called Governor.
I will deal with the explanation as to the latter first. I have no book or other data before me, and I was but a mere lad at the time, but when Hon. Pendleton Murrah was elected, Hon. Fletcher S. Stockdale was elected Lieutenant Governor. I know, because he defeated my father for the position, the only instance in which he ever suffered defeat at the polls. The illness of his very aged mother made it impossible for him to leave home during the campaign. Governor Stockdale was a splendid gentleman, and use- ful citizen.
Judge Ballinger got the title from the fact that he was at one time a Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, a fact which I ven- ture to say, hundreds of Texas lawyers never knew.
Governor Coke had a deservedly high opinion of him as a law- yer, and a man, and was very desirous that he should become a member of the Supreme Court of Texas, and he nominated him and the senate confirmed the appointment. I have reason to believe Judge Ballinger was earnestly desired to serve, but he was not in a position to make the financial sacrifice the acceptance of the place would have involved. He qualified on the 27th day of January, 1874, and resigned the same day. The salary was, at that time, $4,500 per annum, and the inadequate salary lost to the people of Texas the service of as thoroughly qualified a lawyer, and as admirable a gentleman as ever practiced at the bar of Texas, or that of any other state. That class of people who look upon $375 a month as a princely stipend can understand why more of the best lawyers are not on the Bench in Texas, when they know what is a fact-that in each of three cases in which Judge Ballin- ger was employed in the year 1874, he received approximately as much as the State would have paid him for a whole year's service.
He was succeeded by Peter W. Gray, who resigned after a little more than two months' service, on account of ill health. He died October 3, 1874. His superior as a lawyer was never on the Dis- trict Bench or the Supreme Bench in Texas.
I return now to the story of Governor Coke and the veto. Gov- ernor Stockdale was in Austin when the veto was sent in, and
64
GOVERNORS WHO HAVE BEEN
Judge Ballinger told me that he related to him the following inci- dent: Public feeling was so highly aroused and threats made so freely against Governor Coke that Governor Stockdale and a few- perhaps a half dozen-other personal friends and admirers of Governor Coke, went over to the executive mansion to call on him and stay with him. He received them with courtesy and cor- diality, and after the salutions were over, some one of the party, perhaps Governor Stockdale, said: "Governor, perhaps you are not fully aware to what extent your veto of the subsidy bill has inflamed the minds of the people of this city. We have heard men indulge in the bitterest denunciation of you, and threats have been made to hang you in effigy, and we really fear that there are those in the crowd on the streets who even contemplate entering these grounds, if they do not enter the mansion, with the purpose of offering you and your family some personal indiginty. We do not exaggerate the situation, and we felt that it was our duty as your friends, and as citizens to come here and offer you the benefit of our protection."
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.