USA > Texas > Tarrant County > Fort Worth > History of Texas : Fort Worth and the Texas northwest edition, Volume I > Part 48
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 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56
* upon the subject of the enforcement of our jurisdiction over Santa Fé." However, at the time matters were thus approaching a climax at home, the forces of compromise in Con- gress, which had floundered for months through interminable debate. began to make definite progress. On July 9, General Taylor died. His policy was regarded by Texans as inimical to their interests; his criti- cism of Texans had engendered resentment. President Fillmore promptly replied to Governor Bell's protest, and sent a message to Con- gress urging immediate settlement of the boundary question. Daniel Webster, the secretary of state, in conveying the president's message to Governor Bell, argued in a masterful way for moderation. Both he and the president asserted that the president was powerless to settle the dispute-that the matter rested wih Congress. The senate without delay passed the Pearce bill. Both Houston and Rusk voted for this bill. Its provisions began to occupy public attention. Preparations for resistance by the legislature ceased and it adjourned.
As soon as the governor received official notice of the passage of the Pearce bill, he ordered an election at which the people were to express their approval or disapproval of the propositions contained in this bill. Another extra session of the legislature was called, which met November 18. "I have much pleasure," said Governor Bell, "in congratulating you on the improved auspices under which we meet for the tranquillity and peace of the state, and the amicable adjustment of all matters of difference which were likely to arise with the federal government in respect to our territorial limits." The governor was enabled to adopt this positive tone of assurance because a majority of the voters had been favorable to the acceptance of the terms submitted by Congress. The legislature lost no time in ratifying their decision. Texas gave up her
365
HISTORY OF TEXAS
claims to territory lying north and west of the present boundary of the Panhandle, and received in exchange therefor $10,000,000 in United States bonds, bearing five per cent interest and payable after fourteen years. The far-reaching benefits of this act will appear in the succeed- ing chapters on the public debt, prosperity and frontier troubles.
As defined by statute the Texas-New Mexico boundary begins where the parallel of 36° 30' north latitude is intersected by the 103d meridian of west longitude, "thence her boundary shall run due south to the 32d degree of north latitude, thence on said parallel of 32 degrees of north latitude of the Rio Bravo del Norte, and thence with the channel of said river to the Gulf of Mexico." A survey of this line was provided for by an act of Congress passed in 1858, and actual work began the follow- ing year under the supervision of John H. Clark, commissioner of the United States. Starting on the Rio Grande, Clark marked the 32d parallel a distance of 211 miles to the point where his measurements told him it crossed the 103d meridian. There he established a corner. He surveyed north from this corner a distance of twenty-four miles, but was prevented from proceeding farther by want of water. Therefore, he began at the northwest corner of Texas and ran south 156 miles along the 103d meridian. An interval of 130 miles between the nearest ter- minal points of the lines marked by Clark remained unsurveyed. The war between the states caused final action on the survey to be delayed until 1891, but during that year both the United States and Texas accepted the same.
Since Clark had not established the principal points of his survey by astronomical observation, doubt had always existed whether or not he had determined the true 103d meridian. The federal general land office in 1903 caused the 103d meridian to be established by astronomical observation. The result showed that the Clark line intersected the par- allel of 36° 30' a fraction over two miles west of the true meridian and that it intersected the 32d parallel a little over three and three-fourths miles west of the 103d meridian.
This, then, was the situation in 1910; the act of 1850 defined the boundary as the 103d meridian; the acts of the United States and the state of Texas in 1891 accepted the Clark survey as the boundary ; the two were by no means identical. The people of New Mexico naturally objected to Clark's survey because it encroached upon their territory. and in the constitution adopted for the state of New Mexico in January. 1911, the 103d meridian was called for as the eastern boundary of the state from the 37th to the 32d parallels. The constitution was submitted to Congress for approval on February 10. To determine the matter finally Congress passed a joint resolution reaffirming the boundary line. because the United States and the state of Texas had patented lands based upon the Clark lines, the provision of the constitution of New Mexico in conflict with this resolution was declared to be of no force. and provision was made for remarking the Clark lines and completing the survey by running a straight line between the nearest terminal points.
CHAPTER XXVI THE PUBLIC DEBT
At the time of annexation Texas owed between eight and ten mil- lions of dollars. The interest on this debt had never been paid, hence it was growing rapidly. The only resource Texas had with which to pay the debt was the public lands, which, by the terms of annexation. were dedicated to this purpose.
At the session of the first legislature a committee was appointed to consider ways and means for paying the debt. In its report, dated March 1, 1846. it said: "Your committee are confident the people of Texas feel keenly the weight of this obligation, and are anxious to meet it. * *
* Unfortunately, however, for Texas *
*
* her population has not increased with the rapidity which might have been anticipated from the salubrity of her climate and the fertility of her soil. Her resources and ability for raising revenue from direct taxation cannot. for many years to come, exceed the urgent and indispensable wants of her domestic administration. Nor can it be denied that annexation. however important and advantageous to the country in other respects. has, by destroying the revenue arising from the customs, taken from us a growing source of revenue, which might in a short time have afforded efficient means of providing for the public creditors. However strong. therefore, may be the desire of the country to provide for its creditors. it has no ability of doing so except through the means of public lands." Sale of the public lands to the United States was recommended. but the latter probably did not care to buy.
The committee commented on the character of the debt; they said : "The fact that the debt was contracted during a revolutionary struggle constitutes no reason * *
* why we should not pay it in honesty and good faith. They, nevertheless, think that she should be bound to return to the public creditors only what, according to just average, they paid her for her securities, with the rate of interest stipulated in the bond or other evidence of debt." Here is a suggestion for reducing or scaling the debt which evoked protests from the creditors, and of which we shall hear more in tracing this subject :
An act was approved March 20. 1848, "to provide for ascertaining the debt of the late republic of Texas." The holders of claims were required to lay them before the comptroller and auditor, and the latter were directed to classify them and reduce them to the actual par value which the republic realized. By another act it was provided that the creditors might exchange their claims, as determined by the auditorial board, for land certificates at the rate of fifty cents an acre. Land certificates, however, were at that date selling for much less than fifty cents per acre. consequently very few creditors settled their claims on this basis.
In the meantime the subject of the Texas-New Mexico boundary had come to the front in Congress, and through the skillful management of the Texas creditors the settlement of the public debt became inseparably with it. Texas had twice pledged herself to care for her public debt. At this time she was not trying to evade her obligations, but she insisted on having her own way in settling her own business. However, for a
366
.
367
HISTORY OF TEXAS
portion of the Texan liabilities the income from import duties had been specifically pledged. Through annexation these duties inured to the exclusive benefit of the United States. Certain members of Congress argued that a transfer of the security carried with it responsibility for the debt. This view was acquiesced in by a sufficient number in Congress to insert in the boundary act a provision that five millions of the bonds, issued to Texas in consideration of the loss of land suffered in adjusting the boundary, should be retained in the United States treasury in order that the United States might be enabled to take receipts from the cred- itors whose claims were secured by a pledge of the customs duties and thus protect herself for the future. Of course, the bonds were Texan property, and could be paid out only on orders from the Texan govern- ment. The state agreed to this arrangement, although the guardianship assumed by the United States was extremely distasteful to many.
The fact that Texas was thus quite unexpectedly placed in possession of means apparently ample to satisfy all her creditors caused great activ- ity among the latter. The protests against the scaling of their clainis became voluminous. On the other hand, Texas experienced all the sen- sations resulting from suddenly acquired wealth, and, no doubt, many occupied much time in planning ways of spending it in the upbuilding and enrichment of the state.
Five millions in United States bonds were turned over to Texas early in 1852. Promptly an act was passed, January 31, "providing for the liquidation and payment of the debt of the late republic of Texas." This act appropriated $2.000.000 of the bonds in the state treasury for the payment of that portion of the public debt, as reported by the auditorial board, and accrued interest thereon, which was not secured by the revenues from import duties. The act further appropriated the $5,000,- 000 in bonds retained in the United States treasury to pay that portion of the public debt. as reported by the auditorial board, and accrued interest thereon, which was secured by the revenues from import duties. The payment of these last mentioned claims, however. was to be sus- pended until such time as the United States shall have turned over to Texas the whole of the $5,000.000 in bonds retained, in exchange for releases from the creditors, or portions of said bonds equal to the sums for which the state may present the required releases from any portion of the creditors. Under this act the domestic debt was promptly paid. but for reasons stated in the next paragraph the revenue debt remained unpaid for more than four years.
The secretary of the treasury of the United States interpreted the boundary act as specifying that all the creditors of Texas, whose claims were secured by the revenue. must file their releases before any portion of the bonds retained could be issued to Texas. In addition to this, the secretary of the treasury construed the laws of Texas relating to the public debt in such a way as to extend the security of customs duties to a much larger quantity of liabilities than the officers of Texas had ever considered as coming within such quarantee. These constructions of the secretary of the treasury made it impossible to meet the condi- tions prescribed in the boundary act.
There were over 1,600 creditors from whom releases were to be obtained. Some filed their releases promptly, but others refused to do
368
HISTORY OF TEXAS
so because Texas had scaled their claims. Their action delayed the pay- inent of all. Since it was the act of the United States that kept the creditors from receiving their money, they petitioned Congress to amend the conditions of the boundary act so as to permit the payment of those claims for which the corresponding releases had been signed. However. those members of Congress who emphasized the responsibility of the United States for the payment of the revenue debt of Texas opposed such an amendment because it implied acquiescence by the United States in the scaling that Texas had done. But, in view of the construction placed upon the laws of Texas relating to the public debt by the secre- tary of the treasury, the $5,000,000 in bonds retained in the treasury were by no means sufficient to pay the secured claims at their face value. Having complicated matters in this manner, the subject was permitted to drag through several sessions of Congress to the great injury of those creditors who were willing to settle for their claims. The revenue debt was finally disposed of by an act approved February 28, 1855. This act appropriated in lieu of the $5,000,000 in bonds, retained in the United States treasury, the sum of $7,750,000 cash, to be apportioned among the creditors pro rata. Before this could go into effect the legislature of Texas was required to give its assent to the act, and to "abandon all claims and demands against the United States, growing out of Indian depredations or otherwise." The $5,000,000 in bonds, principal and interest, were estimated to amount to $6,500,000. The additional $1,250,- 000 was allowed to set off a claim of $3,800,000 preferred by Texas against the United States for depredations committed by United States Indians in Texas since 1836.
Governor Pease submitted the act of Congress to the voters of Texas for approval or rejection, as Governor Bell had done in the case of the boundary act. "There was powerful opposition to its acceptance, led by some of the ablest men in the state."1 However, only 25,427 of the 45,000 who participated in the election expressed themselves in regard to this act; 13,818 voted to reject. The governor did not consider this vote a fair test of public opinion, and, therefore, urged the legislature to give its assent to the same. "The friends and opponents of this meas- ure were so equally divided that the result remained long in doubt,"2 but it was finally carried, the votes in both the house and the senate being very close. The act received the governor's approval February 1, 1856. The principal objection to the act seems to have been the condition re- quiring that the creditors of Texas be paid at the United States treasury. The scaling that Texas had done, while not adopted in toto, was followed in principle, for the amount appropriated. $7.750,000. had to satisfy claims aggregating the sum of $10,078,703.21. The pro rata was nearly 76 9/10 cents on the dollar. The comptroller of Texas was sent to Washington to inspect and verify all claims presented for payment in order to protect the state against frauds.
In the manner described above Texas discharged her debt without resort to taxation. After paying the debt, a considerable surplus re -. mained in the state treasury. That the national debt was paid off within twenty years after declaration of independence is in itself a remarkable piece of good fortune and wise management.
1 Brown, History of Texas II, 367.
' Ibid.
CHAPTER XXVII PROSPERITY AND PROGRESS, 1846-1860
The war with Mexico marked the beginning of a period of rapid growth in the population and wealth of Texas, which was arrested only by the paralyzing effects of the war between the states. The Mexican war, the boundary question and the public debt had furnished excellent material for giving publicity to Texas throughout the Union. Fertile lands, genial climate, bountiful harvests, pre-emption titles for the land- less, cheap lands for the planter, low taxes, protected homestead, oppor- tunity for adventure and the absence of a large slave population were some of the things that attracted hardy, enterprising settlers. During the decade from 1850 to 1860 Texas was exceeded in growth of popu- lation by four other states only-California, Oregon, Iowa, and Minnesota.
POPULATION OF TEXAS
Year
White
Slave
Free colored
Total
1846*
102,961
38,753
295
142,009
1850.
154,034
58,161
397
212,592
1860
421,411
180,682
339
602,432
*State Census.
Texas ranked twenty-fifth in population among the thirty-one states in 1850, and twenty-third among the thirty-three states in 1860.
The rapid growth in population signified the occupation of large areas of the wild lands of the state. The rapidity with which the line of the frontier was pushed back is shown in a striking manner by lists of the new counties created in successive years. Omitting the names of the counties created in 1846, whose creation was delayed by obstacles afforded by the constitution of the republic, the following constitute the annual or biennial tiers added from 1848 to 1858:
1848. Caldwell, Cameron, Cooke, Gillespie, Hays, Kaufman, Medina, Santa Fé, Starr, Van Zandt, Webb, and Williamson-twelve counties. 1849. Ellis and Tarrant-two counties.
1850. Bell, El Paso, Falls, Freestone, Kinney, McLennan, Presidio, Trinity, Uvalde, Wood and Worth-eleven counties.
1852. Burnet, Hidalgo and Orange-three counties.
1853. Hill and Madison-two counties.
1854. Bosque, Coryell, Johnson and Karnes-four counties.
1855. Parker-one county.
1856. Atascosa, Bandera, Brown, Comanche, Erath. Jack, Kerr, Lampasas, Live Oak. Llano, Maverick, McCulloch, Palo Pinto, San Saba, Wise and Young-sixteen counties.
1857. . Bee, Clay and Montague-three counties.
1858. Archer, Baylor, Blanco, Buchanan, Callahan, Chambers, Cole- man, Concho, Dawson, Dimmit, Duval, Eastland, Edwards, Encinal, Frio, Hamilton, Hardeman, Hardin, Haskell, Jones, Kimble, Knox, La Salle, Mason, McMullen, Menard. Runnels, Shackelford, Stephens, Taylor,
VOL. 1-21
369
370
HISTORY OF TEXAS
Throckmorton, Wichita, Wilbarger, Zapata and Zavala-thirty-five counties.
It will be seen that the territory occupied by these new counties- eighty-nine in number-embraced all that portion of the state east of the 100th meridian of west longitude.
In the previous chapter an account was given of the manner in which Texas paid her public debt. Relief from this great burden early in the fifties added a great impetus to the public enterprise of the state. Re- markable as the growth and expansion of population just shown had been, it was outstripped in the increase of wealth: the population in 1860 was four times that of 1846; the taxable values in 1860 were eight times greater than those of 1846.
Rate of
Year
Taxable values
taxation on $100
1846
$34,391,175
$0.20
1847
37,562,505
.20
1848.
43,812,537
.20
1849.
46,241,589
.20
1850
51,814,615
.15
1851.
69,739,581
.15
1852. 1853
80,754,094
.15
99,155,114
.15
1854
126,981,617
.15
1855
149,521,451
.15
1856.
161,304,025
.15
1857
183,594,205
15
1858
193,636,818
.12
1859
224,353,266
12
1860.
294,315,659
12
With the increase in population and wealth there arose a demand for better transportation facilities than were supplied by the ox wagon and stage coach. Attention was first directed toward the improvement of the rivers and bays. Early in the fifties a private company opened a canal connecting Galveston Bay and Brazos River. The Legislature passed an act in 1853 appropriating $264,500, in sums ranging from $1,000 to $37,500. for work on nineteen different projects. The subject of internal improvements being a mooted question, this act was submitted to a vote of the people before becoming effective, and at their hands it met de- feat. Governor Pease recommended a renewal of appropriations for the improvement of the waterways. and attributed the defeat of the former law not to opposition to the principles involved, but to the fact that the act "made insufficient appropriations for those streams susceptible of being improved. while it contained many appropriations for objects of questionable utility." A general act for the improvement of waterways was passed in 1856. It appropriated $300.000 for this purpose, to be allotted in amounts ranging from $1.000 to $50,000, but each locality desiring state aid under the terms of this act was required to contribute an amount equal to one-fourth of the appropriation desired. The con- tracts for the improvements required the approval of the state engineer. Following is a list of the improvements that were undertaken and the
371
HISTORY OF TEXAS
work on which was either completed or well under way when interrupted by the breaking out of the war:
Rivers, Bays, Etc. Section Appropriation
Western bays-Aransas, Espiritu Santo and Matagorda. $47,500
Guadalupe River-From mouth to Victoria. 22,950
Colorado River-Canal around raft. . 35,000
Colorado River-From raft to Wharton. 11,240
San Bernard-From mouth to railroad crossing. 3,900
Brazos River-From Columbia to Washington.
50,000
Oyster Creek-From Galveston and Brazos Canal to Retrieve
3,833
Galveston and San Luis bays-From Galveston city to Galves- ton and Brazos Canal. 16,875
Galveston Bay-Red Fish Bar
6,250
San Jacinto River-Clopper's Bar. 22,725
Buffalo Bayou-From Houston down. 22,500
Trinity River-Bar at mouth. 15,120
Sabine Bar-700 yards.
15,000
Sabine River-From Turner's Ferry to Logansport. 31,455
Sabine River-From Logansport to Bacon's Bluff . 20,000
Neches Bar-600 yards
3,000
Neches and Angelina rivers-From Bacon's Bluff to Worden's Ferry on the Angelina River. 18,161
Big Cypress Bayou and Caddo Lake-From state line to Jef- ferson 21,298
The topography of Texas made it impossible for waterways to serve any large portion of the state. The construction of railways was, there- fore, advocated and encouraged with great liberality. Railway pro- moters received generous contributions of land, labor, money and mate- rials of construction from the citizens along the proposed routes. The state, too, adopted measures for aiding in the building of railways. The constitution of 1845 provided for the creation of a permanent school fund by appropriating for this purpose one-tenth of all revenue raised by tax- ation. $2,000,000 in United States bonds were added to this fund in 1854. To provide a method of investing this fund so that it would be safe and yield a return, an act was passed in 1856 which made it pos- sible for railroad companies to borrow at six per cent $6,000 for everv mile of completed road. Loans from this fund were made to the fol- lowing companies :
Houston & Texas Central. $450,000
75
miles
Buffalo Bayou, Brazos & Colorado
420,000
70
miles
Texas & New Orleans.
430,000
71 2/3 miles
Houston Tap & Brazoria.
300,000
50
miles
Southern Pacific (Texas & Pacific)
150,000
25 miles
Washington County Railroad.
66,000
11 miles
$1,816,000
In addition to lending money to the railroads, the state by an act passed in 1854 donated to the railroads sixteen 640-acre sections of land
372
HISTORY OF TEXAS
for each mile of completed road. The railroads were required to sur- vey the lands at their own expense, in double the amount they were to receive, and the alternate sections of the lands so surveyed remained the property of the state.
The railroad mileage constructed from 1853 to 1862, by years, is as follows :
1853
20 miles
1854
12 miles
1855 8 miles
1856.
31 miles
1857 1858.
86 miles
48 miles
1859
79 miles
1860
23 miles
1861
85 miles
1862.
59 miles
Construction ceased in 1862 and was not resumed till after the war. The following is a brief synopsis of the history of the eleven railway companies that constructed lines in Texas before the war: (1) The Buffalo Bayou, Brazos and Colorado Railroad was the pioneer. It was begun at Harrisburg in 1852, and the first locomotive was placed on it that year. Twenty miles were completed by August 1, 1853. It was extended to Alleyton, eighty miles. (2) The Houston and Texas Cen- tral placed its first locomotive on the road in 1856, at which time it had two miles of track out of Houston. It had reached Millican, eighty miles, when construction ceased. (3) The Washington County Railroad was begun in 1857 and in 1860 extended from Hempstead to Brenham, twenty-one miles. (4) The Galveston, Houston and Henderson was begun at Virginia Point in 1854; it reached Houston in 1858. The next year a bridge was constructed across Galveston Bay, and in 1860 the road extended from Galveston to Houston, fifty miles. (5) The Hous- ton Tap and Brazoria Railroad was built by the city of Houston in 1856 from Houston to Pierce Junction, seven miles, to connect with the Buf- falo Bayou, Brazos and Colorado Railroad. In 1859 it was sold, and by the purchasers extended to Columbia on the Brazos, fifty miles. (6) Work was begun on the Texas and New Orleans Railway at Houston in 1858, and by January 1, 1861, had been completed to Orange on the Sabine River, 111 miles. (7) The Eastern Texas Railroad was built from Sabine Pass to Beaumont in 1860, twenty-five miles. (8) The San Antonio and Mexican Gulf Railway was begun in 1856 and completed in 1861 ; it extended from Port Lavaca to Victoria, twenty-eight miles. (9) The Indianola Railway was begun in 1858 and built from that port to a junction on the San Antonio and Mexican Gulf Railway, fifteen miles. (10) The Southern Pacific began construction in 1856 and by 1859 had completed its line from Marshall to the state line, twenty-seven miles. (11) The Memphis, El Paso and Pacific Railway built five miles of road from Jefferson toward Lake Caddo.
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.