^ 53.3 
 T 3\5s 
 
 umver^tycf \iv: 
 
 OCT 8 
 
 ENATE JOURNAL 
 
 Thirty-fifth Legislature — Third Called Session. 
 
 AUSTIN, TEXAS, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1917. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS 
 
 SEVENTEENTH DAY. 
 
 Motion Pictures Permitted. 
 
 Senate Chamber, 
 
 Austin, Texas, 
 Saturday, Sept. 22, 1917. 
 
 The Senate met at 8:45 o’clock a. 
 m. pursuant to adjournment, and 
 was called to order by President Pro 
 Tern. Dean. 
 
 The roll was called, a quorum 
 being present, the following Sen- 
 ators answering to their names: 
 
 Alderdice. Hopkins. 
 
 Bailey. Hudspeth. 
 
 Bee. Johnson of Hall. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. Johnston of Harris. 
 Buchanan of Scurry. Lattimore. 
 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 McCollum. 
 
 McNealus. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 Prayer by the Chaplain. 
 
 Pending the reading of the Jour- 
 nal of yesterday, the same was dis- 
 pensed with on motion of Senator 
 Alderdice. 
 
 Petitions and Memorials. 
 There were none today. 
 
 Committee Reports. 
 See Appendix. 
 
 Bills and Resolutions. 
 There were none at this time. 
 
 Senator McNealus asked for unan- 
 imous consent to have the shades 
 above the chamber removed for to- 
 day in order that there may be suf- 
 ficient light in the Chamber to per- 
 mit the making of pictures of the 
 trial. 
 
 There was objection by Senator 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Senator Westbrook moved the 
 Sergeant at Arms be instructed to 
 remove the shades from the ceiling 
 of the Senate Chamber for the pur- 
 pose of permitting pictures to be 
 made of this trial. 
 
 The motion prevailed. 
 
 Special Rules for Impeachment. 
 
 Proposed. 
 
 Senator Lattimore offered the 
 following: 
 
 To the Honorable Senators of Texas: 
 
 We, your committee on Rules re- 
 spectfully submit for the approval of 
 the Senate Special Rule No. 1 as 
 follows: 
 
 When the argument of Counsel 
 for each side shall have been con- 
 cluded the Chair shall announce 
 the Senate is now ready to vote 
 upon the Articles of Impeachment 
 and shall direct the Secretary of the 
 Senate to read said articles sepa- 
 rately and as each article is read 
 shall direct the Secretary of the 
 Senate to call the roll and as' the 
 name of each Senator is called he 
 shall arise in his place and announce 
 his vote as guilty or not guilty. 
 
 When all of said charges shall 
 have been read and voted upon the 
 Chair shall appoint a committee of 
 three Senators to formulate and 
 present to the Senate for its approval 
 a formal judgment to be entered in 
 
854 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 the Journal and certified to the 
 proper officer. 
 
 DEAN, 
 
 LATTIMORE. 
 
 The rule was read and upon ob- 
 jection by several Senators the same 
 was withdrawn. 
 
 The Horn* for Court Postponed. 
 
 Senator Westbrook made the 
 point of order that the hour for the 
 convening of the Court had arrived. 
 
 The point of order was sustained. 
 
 Senator Page moved that the 
 morning session of the Senate be ex- 
 tended for ten minutes and the Court 
 postponed for the same period. 
 
 The motion prevailed. 
 
 Senator Lattimore made a state- 
 ment relating to the proposed 
 Special Rule above shown. 
 
 In the Court. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 Saturday, September 22, 1917./ 
 Morning Session. 
 
 Senate Chamber, Austin, Texas. 
 
 Hon. W. L. Dean, President Pro 
 Tempore, presiding. 
 
 (Pursuant to adjournment, the 
 Senate, siting as a High Court of Im- 
 peachment, reconvened at 9 o’clock 
 a. m.) 
 
 The Board of Managers and their 
 Counsel were present. 
 
 The Respondent and his Counsel 
 were present. 
 
 The Chair: The time having ar- 
 rived for the convening of the Court 
 of Impeachment, the Sergeant-at 
 Arms will proclaim the convening 
 of the Court, and see that the rules 
 with respect to those entitled to the 
 privileges of the floor and the bar 
 are enforced. 
 
 Sergeant-at-Arms (at the door of 
 the Senate): Oyez; Oyez! Oyez! the 
 Senate, sitting as a High Court of 
 Impeachment is now in session. 
 
 The Chair: Mr. Hanger. 
 
 Mr. Hanger: Mr. President, I de- 
 sire to make a statement in the na- 
 ture of one of personal privilege. 
 
 Senator Gilbson: Mr. President, 
 I suggest that the Senator — 
 
 Senator Bee: Will the Senator 
 speak louder? 
 
 Mr. Hanger: Just a moment. 
 
 Senator Gibson: Face the audi- 
 ence. 
 
 Mr. Hanger: Yes, sir, you will 
 hear me. 
 
 Senator Dayton: Let’s have or- 
 der, gentlemen, we can’t hear him 
 unless we have order. 
 
 The Chair: Well, if the Senators 
 and the members of the Court down 
 here will help keep order, we can 
 have it, otherwise we cannot have it. 
 We want order today, and we must 
 have it, and the Chair earnestly re- 
 quests every member of th’e Court to 
 assist in trying to keep order. 
 
 Mr. Hanger: I desire to make a 
 statement in the matter of personal 
 privilege. The remarkable statement 
 appears in at least two of the pa- 
 pers on the desks of the Senators 
 this morning that I am no longer of 
 counsel in this trial. In the Austin 
 American the statement is made that 
 Mr. Cummings and myself are no 
 longer of defense counsel. The un- 
 justifiable part about it is that by 
 simple inquiry, either of the Gov- 
 ernor, Mr. Cummings, or myself, the 
 falsity of the statement made could 
 have been determined; but it is pub- 
 lished as a fact with the manifest 
 purpose of an attempt not only to 
 injure the Governor, but to injure 
 Mr. Cummings and myself by creat- 
 ing the broadcast impression that at 
 this stage of this proceeding we 
 would desert the Governor. I feel 
 like those who know Mr. Cummings 
 and me, whether they like us or not, 
 will acquit us of any such unworthy 
 prompting as those. On account of 
 this inclination to prolong the dis- 
 cussion we saw yesterday afternoon 
 that there was not sufficient time for 
 all of us to argue this case, much as 
 we desire to do it. Responding to 
 the respect we felt for the expression 
 of the member of the Court which 
 reached us, we bowed to what was 
 their manifest wish in the premises 
 and made the agreement, which the 
 Chair knows about, with counsel on 
 the other side. I desire to charac- 
 terize the publication as it deserves. 
 It is nothing short of infamous and 
 false in every particular, has no foun- 
 dation, and was published without 
 any due regard for the facts, with- 
 
"5 5 3.^ 
 
 SENAT'E JOURNAL. 
 
 855 
 
 out any investigation, and with a 
 manifest purpose to do an injury. 
 I have demanded myself, of the re- 
 porter of one of the papers, to know 
 his authority. He declined to give 
 it. But I want to make this state- 
 ment, and to demand that a retrac- 
 tion be made as publicly as the false 
 statement has been made this morn- 
 ing, in the papers tomorrow. 
 
 Senator Bee: Mr. President — go 
 ahead, Mr. Cummings. 
 
 Mr. Cummings: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Mr. Cummings. 
 
 Mr. Cummings: I simply want to 
 concur in what Senator Hanger has 
 stated, and add this: that the dignity 
 of this occasion prevents me from 
 expressing my true opinion of the 
 men who wrote the articles; but at 
 another time and in another place 
 I shall avail myself of the occasion. 
 
 Senator Bee: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Mr. Bee. 
 
 Senator Bee: I remarked during 
 the session yesterday that I thought 
 it was a pity that we should limit 
 argument in this case — in a case of 
 this magnitude and of this character. 
 I have participated, as have other 
 Senators, in many trials of men for 
 their lives and their liberties, and in 
 capital felonies especially — and this 
 bears a similarity to it — there has 
 never been within my experience any 
 effort to limit the argument that 
 counsel might make. I am not go- 
 ing to make a motion at this time, 
 but I want to suggest to those who 
 advocated the limitation of four 
 hours to a side, upon a question of 
 the most tremendous moment and 
 importance within the great history 
 of this State, if we. ought, in view of 
 the statement made by those gentle- 
 men, to render it impossible that 
 these gentlemen who have been with 
 this trial from its inception, acquain- 
 ted with it in all of its details, should 
 not, for the sake of time, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, that fleets and goes, time in 
 which men go back to their voca- 
 tions, and the result of this judg- 
 ment will live in the history of this 
 State, time because some man wants 
 to get to a vote — I am going to ask 
 the Senate, not in the shape of a mo- 
 tion — because I have no control — if 
 it is too late to permit the gentle- 
 men who have devoted themselves to 
 the conduct of the trial of this case, 
 to state to this Senate, sitting not, 
 Mr. President, as a jury, but as the 
 
 highest court known to any land — 
 a High Court of Impeachment, these 
 gentlemen should not be denied the 
 opportunity because of a few fleet- 
 ing hours to state to this Court their 
 conclusions and their jqrdgment as 
 to the momentous issues involved 
 herein. If it is not the wish of the 
 Senate that that be done, I pursue 
 the inquiry no further, but I con- 
 clude by stating, that so far as I 
 am concerned, regardless of the sac- 
 rifice of business and of time, this 
 High Court of Impeachment ought 
 not to differ from the rules that the 
 district judges apply in their courts 
 of free and unlimited argument of 
 questions involved. If the Senate 
 does not wish it that way, I place 
 myself on record in advocacy of no 
 limitation upon the time in which 
 the gentlemen on either side of this 
 question shall present their argu- 
 ments. 
 
 Senator Henderson: Mr. Chair- 
 
 man, I would like to state to the Sen- 
 ator, my understanding was an agree 
 ment had been made among Counsel 
 as to the time they desired, as stated 
 this morning. 
 
 Senator Bee: I understand that 
 perfectly, but I only wanted to make 
 this statement. 
 
 Mr. Hanger: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Senator Hanger de- 
 sires to make a statement 
 
 Mr. Hanger: I desire to make a 
 statement, that in making the state- 
 ment I made, it was not intended in 
 any way to alter the arrangement al- 
 ready made; two speeches have al- 
 ready been made with that arrange- 
 ment and agreement in view, and it 
 would not, as we understand it, be 
 exactly appropriate, appreciating, as 
 much as we do, the generous sug- 
 gestion of the Senator from Bexar, 
 that would not be appropriate with 
 the argument practically half con- 
 cluded, to change the arrangement 
 entered into by agreement of coun- 
 sel on the opposing side and ourselves 
 on yesterday afternoon. It was only 
 to make manifest to all those here, 
 and to those who might know of 
 these proceedings, and to those who 
 have heard these proceedings that 
 there had not been any cessation of 
 the labor of love undertaken by us 
 a few weeks ago. 
 
 Senator Page: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Senator Page. 
 
 Senator Page: In view of what 
 
856 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 counsel stated, I would like to make 
 this statement in deference to Mr. 
 Hanger and Mr. Cummings. I desire 
 to say that at the proper time I and 
 other Senators here will propose to 
 make an investigation, calling before 
 us or this Senate, the reporters rep- 
 resenting the different papers in this 
 Senate, and we will .require of them 
 to state to us the man who has made 
 public this statement which Mr. Han- 
 ger has characterized as untrue — and 
 which I acept as untrue, and thought 
 was untrue when I read it in the pa- 
 per. It would be improper for this 
 Court now probably to do it, but 
 later on we will do that, and it will 
 be my idea to exclude from the floor 
 of this Senate, in so far as we may, 
 the reporter who has so offended and 
 who made that statement, and let 
 him give the facts, or give us his in- 
 formant, and if he gives us the name 
 of his informant, we will deal with 
 him as we can. I- desire to make that 
 statement. 
 
 The Chair: All right, gentlemen, 
 with those explanations, are you 
 ready? 
 
 Thereupon, the Respondent, 
 
 JAMES E, FERGUSON. 
 
 addressed the Court in his own be- 
 half, as follows, to wit: 
 
 Mr. President and Gentlemen of the 
 
 Senate: 
 
 A long time ago, wlien I was a 
 school boy, I remember to have read 
 a little rhyme that read something 
 like this: 
 
 “It is easy, when destiny proves 
 kind 
 
 “With full spread sail, to run be- 
 fore the wind 
 
 “But those who against stiff gales 
 would careering ^o 
 
 “Must be at once resolved and 
 skilful too.” 
 
 So, this morning, as I appear be- 
 fore this august body, and as I ap- 
 pear as the chief actor in this mo- 
 mentous proceeding, in which not 
 only you, under your official oaths 
 are deeply concerned, but through- 
 put the confines of this great State, 
 and the great yeomanry, and the 
 great people who cause us to say 
 that we have got the greatest civ- 
 ilization and the greatest State in 
 the Union, they, too, are interested 
 in the results of this trial and the 
 
 effect upon history which shall 
 come after us; and realizing and 
 imbued with the deep solemnity of 
 this occasion, I appreciate the great 
 necessity not only of not trying to 
 deceive you, but of trying to deceive 
 myself. I think I appreciate, my 
 friends, what I am up against, just 
 the same as you do, and I arrogate 
 to myself no particular qualifica- 
 tion of intelligence by stating that 
 fact, because he who runs might 
 read. For the last few weeks the 
 plain issue and the plain result that 
 weeks ago had been intended and 
 designed by some; and if this 
 Senate shall not carry out that inten- 
 tion and that design, then the 
 great interests in Texas will be 
 very much disappointed, and in their 
 opinion a great mistake will have 
 occurred. I say this devoid of all 
 bitterness. I realize the condition 
 and you realize the condition under 
 which this accusation has been 
 brought against me, and you under- 
 stand, and I know you understand, 
 and I want you to know I under- 
 stand just as much as you, and I 
 understand the conditions. In my 
 younger days I might have given 
 away to temper and permitted my- 
 self to become excited and moved to 
 exclamations of bitterness and epi- 
 thets, but as we grow older, you 
 know, we become nearer being phi- 
 losophers, and this morning, not- 
 withstanding that I know the ver- 
 dict that you are .going to write, 
 whilst there are some phases about 
 it which I might regret and you 
 would regret if you were in my po- 
 sition, yet, let us not deceive our- 
 selves. History is not so much, my 
 friends, the recording chronological- 
 ly of this or that fact, but it is in 
 determining the influence Of this 
 fact or that fact upon the age in 
 which it occurred, or posterity 
 which will feel its influence in after 
 years. And so, my friends, this 
 morning, let us dismiss, if we may, 
 the personal equation involved, let 
 us decide this question and consider 
 it as men ought to consider it; it 
 is only by that means that you can 
 perform your duty to yourself, or 
 that I may discharge my duty to 
 myself. What are the conditions 
 which confront your respondent at 
 this time If a man down in the 
 Travis County Court should be tried 
 if he should be charged with a 
 crime against the laws of the State, 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 857 
 
 the Court sets the day when he 
 should reply and answer the charge 
 against him. 
 
 The Chair (interrupting): Gov- 
 ernor, will you wait a minute, please 
 sir? Mr. Sergeant at Arms, I wish 
 you would station somebody outside 
 that door and see that we have no 
 noise out there. Eject those boys, 
 or men, or whoever they are, that 
 are making the fuss. 
 
 Governor Ferguson (resuming): 
 The day of trial would be set, and 
 the defendant would appear, and 
 when the case was to be considered 
 it would be ascertained from ju- 
 dicial knowledge that the crime for 
 which he must answer had been pre- 
 viously defined by the legislative 
 body of this State. The way in 
 which the jury should be selected 
 would be ascertained from the books 
 previously enacted into law, and the 
 manner and the mode of admitting 
 the evidence would be prescribed 
 with judicial certainty; and when 
 that was read,, the exact crime with 
 which he was charged would also 
 be defined with judicial certainty. 
 There could be no mistake about 
 what would constitute the crime for 
 which the defendant must stand 
 trial. The law previously would not 
 have left that to doubt or to con- 
 jecture or to discretion; but the 
 crime and what constituted the 
 crime would have been determined 
 — previously determined and de- 
 fined, so that there' could be no 
 mistake about the charge which the 
 commonwealth of the State was 
 asking the defendant to answer. 
 When the law was read it would be 
 further ascertained that the means 
 and manner and the mode of trial 
 equally with the same precision and 
 with the same solemnity had been 
 determined by the law of the land. 
 The qualifications of the jurors who 
 should sit upon the case would have 
 previously as judicially certain been 
 made and determined as constituent 
 elements of the crime itself. When 
 the jurors once file into the jury 
 box, the humblest citizen of this 
 land would have the right by his 
 counsel to say to each member of 
 the jury, and require his answer 
 under oath, “Have you any bias in 
 favor of, or prejudice against the 
 defendant?” And if the juryman 
 answered “Yes,” would immediately 
 say that, “You are disqualified to 
 pass upon the merits of this case, 
 
 and you will be excused.” And if 
 it should be further ascertained that 
 any man in the jury box during the 
 pendency of the trial had talked 
 about the case and had expressed 
 what his verdict would be before the 
 case had been concluded, the judge 
 of the court would have the right, 
 knowing that most judges would 
 exercise that right, to call the juror 
 before the bar of justice and admin- 
 ister some punishment for contempt. 
 I mention this to show you with 
 what certainty, with what solemnity 
 and with what supreme respect for 
 the rights of the citizens, the courts 
 and the legislative body of the land 
 have provided, that every citizen 
 might enjoy a fair and impartial 
 trial upon the merits of his case. 
 Every citizen of the land has the 
 right guaranteed to him and given 
 to him, and every man charged with 
 crime throughout the confines of 
 this State enjoys the privileges of 
 those rights guaranteed under the 
 laws and Constitution of the State, 
 except one individual, and that is 
 the Governor of the State on trial for 
 his official position. That leads me 
 to what the lawyers have been say- 
 ing in your midst about the right of 
 this Senate to try the Governor of 
 that State. Ah! it has been said, 
 and will be contended hereafter, that 
 this is not a criminal case. Yet, my 
 friends, if there was any doubt about 
 it — about whether this is a criminal 
 case or not, every fairminded man must 
 yield that contention when he heard 
 the special rule sent up by the Sen- 
 ator from Tarrant this morning. The 
 rule was that when this argument 
 is ended each Senator shall be re- 
 quired to rise in his seat and vote 
 what? “Aye” or “Nay?” No. 
 “Guilty” or “Not Guilty!” Should 
 there be any doubt in the minds of 
 any fairminded man that I am on 
 trial as a criminal in your presence? 
 If that was not true, why was it 
 necessary for this Court, in order to 
 write out its verdict, to have a 
 simple rule passed, that it was 
 “Guilty” or “Not Guilty?” Ah! there 
 is the crux in the whole argument! 
 The laws of this State have pro- 
 vided that for every citizen of the 
 land, except the Governor on trial 
 for his official position, the form of 
 the verdict shall be “Guilty” or “Not 
 Guilty,” and yet me Legislature has 
 not given nor guaranteed nor pro- 
 
858 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 vided that right to the Governor of 
 this State. And so, as I say, it 
 brings us by an object lesson, as it 
 were, to the conditions under which 
 I am being tried before this Senate. 
 You guarantee,- the law guarantees 
 to a negro crap-shooter, it guaran- 
 tees to a negro boot-legger, it guar- 
 antees to the veriest criminal in the 
 land, a full definition and a full de- 
 scription of the crime upon which 
 you are going to try him for his lib- 
 erty; and, yet, I defy General Crane 
 upon his time coming to speak to 
 this Senate, to put his hand, to put 
 his finger upon any crime for which 
 the Governor of Texas may be im- 
 peached! It does not take a lawyer 
 of any great ability to see that prop- 
 osition. Here I am put upon trial for 
 an office which all the courts of the 
 land recognize, as private property, 
 just the same as owning a farm — it is 
 property, just like anything 'else, with 
 the constitutional provision guaran- 
 teed to me, as well as to you, that I 
 shall not be deprived of my property 
 without due process of law. 
 
 It now appears that I am on trial 
 for my property without any process 
 of law having been provided, without 
 any manner and mode of procedure 
 having been provided without any 
 definition of the crime aforesaid hav- 
 ing been provided. I am here to be 
 tried for the highest office in the land 
 in the face of the fact that the Leg- 
 islature, notwithstanding the Con- 
 stitution provided that it should do 
 it, has never yet performed its duty 
 of providing a manner and a mode 
 or the causes for which a man may 
 be impeached in Texas. Senators, the 
 Constitution says, “The Legislature 
 shall provide by law for the trial and 
 removal from office of all officers of 
 this State, the mode for which have 
 not been provided for in this Consti- 
 tution.” You find that everybody else 
 has had a way fixed whereby they 
 can be tried and the causes for which 
 they may be tried, but nothing left 
 for the Governor. Why, I want to 
 call your attention to Section 24 of 
 Article 5 of the Constitution: “Coun- 
 ty judges, county attorneys, clerks of 
 the district and county courts, -jus- 
 tices of the peace, constables, and 
 other county officers, may be re- 
 moved by the judges of the district 
 court for incompetency, official mis- 
 conduct, habitual drunkenness, or 
 other causes defined by law, upon the 
 
 cause therefor being set forth in 
 writing, and the finding of its truth 
 by a jury.” Lawyers of this Senate, 
 I want to put to you this question: 
 Can you put your hand upon the pro- 
 vision of the Constitution or of the 
 Statute defined by law for which you 
 could impech the Governor of this 
 State? If you can not do that, then, 
 my friends, you are recreant to your 
 oath if you undertake to exercise the 
 power or discretion not permitted by 
 the Constitution of this State. And 
 let me say right here, I am not going 
 to appeal to passion or prejudice or to 
 sympathy. If I should appeal to pas- 
 sion and prejudice, that might 
 cause you to lose sight of the main 
 issue in this case. If I appeal to sym- 
 pathy that would be the exercise of 
 a right which I have not and will not 
 urge upon any Senator. I want to 
 appear in the language of the Roman 
 statesman who said that in matters of 
 right there was not one law for Ath- 
 ens, there was not another for Greece, 
 there was not another for Rome, but 
 for all men in all ages and all times 
 there remained the eternal law of jus- 
 tice, and I appeal only to that law. 
 If you, in the exercise of your oath, 
 convict me and find me guilty of a 
 crime not defined by law or by the 
 Constitution, then you have denied to 
 me simple justice, you have denied to 
 me the same right that is guaranteed 
 to the most humble citizen in the land 
 and the veriest criminal in the land. 
 Let them put their finger upon a 
 single cause which the Constitution 
 decides shall be cause for impeach- 
 ment. Now, they will say, well, I 
 have been guilty of this and I have 
 been guilty of that. All right. Let’s 
 see if the Constitution says that is 
 sufficient ground for impeachment. 
 Section 8 of Article 15 provides: “The 
 judges of the Supreme Court, Court 
 of Appeals and District Court, shall 
 be removed by the Governor on the 
 address of tw'o-thirds of each house of 
 the Legislature” — for what? — “for 
 wilful neglect of duty, incompetency, 
 habitual drunkenness, oppression in 
 office, or other reasonable cause” — - 
 listen — “which shall not be sufficient 
 ground for impeachment.” Now, 
 catch the four causes; neglect of 
 duty, incompetency, habitual drunk- 
 enness, oppression in office. They do 
 not charge me with habitual drunk- 
 enness, and of course that is cut out. 
 New, then, neglect of duty. All right. 
 Let’s say for the sake of argument 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 859 
 
 that I neglected my duty. Incompe- 
 tency. Let’s admit for the sake of ar- 
 bument that I am incompetent. Op- 
 pression in office. Let’s admit for 
 the sake of those who would find 
 some satisfaction in the charge that 
 I have been oppressive in office. 
 And yet, Senators sworn to uphold 
 the Constitution, are you going to say 
 that I shall he impeached for that 
 ground — upon those grounds — when 
 the Constitution says “or other reason- 
 able cause, which shall not be suf- 
 ficient ground for impeachment.” Neg- 
 lect of duty, incompetency, and op- 
 pression in office will include every 
 charge that has been filed against me 
 by this Court. And yet, in the face 
 of that, the Constitution of this State 
 says that it is not sufficient ground 
 to even remove a judge from his po- 
 sition on the bench. Yet you want to 
 take the Governor of your State, 
 when your oath to uphold the Con- 
 stitution of the State binding upon 
 you as well as upon me, when they 
 have said in unmistakable language., 
 that it is not sufficient ground for 
 impeachment, you are being asked to 
 write a verdict to put the Governor of 
 this State out of office in the ab- 
 sence of any provision defining a 
 cause for which the Governor may be 
 impeached, and in the face of the ex- 
 press provision which says that the 
 things they charge me with are not 
 sufficient grounds for impeachment 
 Ah! my friends, you brush aside the 
 passion of the hour, you brush aside 
 the sentiment that has been fostered 
 here, you brush aside the pressure 
 that has been brought to bear, and di- 
 vest yourselves of all other influences 
 save that of your oaths to try impar- 
 tially this case, this case would not 
 last five minutes on a proposition 
 that the Constitution itself in unmis- 
 takable language has declared that 
 everything that they have charged 
 me with are not sufficient grounds 
 for impeachment. 
 
 But I must pass on. I want to 
 discus with you in a simple way, in 
 a plain way, in a candid way, the 
 charges which have been brought 
 against me. I realize that this is 
 no time for a display of temper. I 
 realize the gravity of the situation, 
 if you please, that confronts me, 
 and I realize that if I am to be ex- 
 onerated by this Senate it will be 
 only in appealing to the heart and 
 conscience and mind of every Sena- 
 tor who is willing to divest himself 
 
 of every passion or prejudice or sym- 
 pathy, bias or prejudice which he 
 may have in the case, and appealing 
 to the fairminded man who is seek- 
 ing for the truth, who is willing to 
 put his hand upon his heart and say 
 that “My verdict upon this charge 
 or that charge is one which my con- 
 science alone permits me to render.” 
 Now, my friends, before I go' into 
 the discussion of the charges I want 
 to call your attention to one astound- 
 ing statement that was made yester- 
 day by the counsel for the Manag- 
 ers, and I know you heard it and I 
 know you must have thought about 
 it, but I again want to call it to 
 your attention, because it is the 
 crux of the whole argument in this 
 case. Mr. Harris told you yester- 
 day — listen, refer to the stenograph- 
 er’s report to see if I am not correct, 
 said, “We are not asking the Sen- 
 ate of Texas to impeach the Gover- 
 nor because he did not appoint an- 
 other man in Frank Swor’s place. 
 We are not asking the Senate” — and 
 he said, “I admit that is not sufficient 
 ground to impeach him. We are not 
 asking the Senate of Texas,” he said, 
 “to impeach the Governor because he 
 would not tell where he borowed the 
 $156,000. We are not asking the Sen^ 
 ate of Texas to impeach the Governor 
 upon the ground of that fifty-six hun- 
 dred dollar item. We are not asking 
 the Senate of Texas to impeach the 
 Governor upon any one count, but it 
 is upon twenty-one counts piled up 
 like stove wood. We are going to 
 establish a grab-net machine here and 
 admit as we do that none of them 
 are sufficient within themselves; on 
 general principles we are going to 
 say that the Governor of the State 
 ought to be impeached.” My friends 
 my personal equation in this matter 
 need not be considered. Men come 
 and men go; nations come and na- 
 tions go, but principles live forever. 
 It is upon the principles of right and 
 wrong that civilization has been 
 handed down to this day and this 
 time, a civilization founded upon 
 right and upon wrong. You establish 
 the principle that the Governor of 
 this State may be impeached upon 
 general principles and suspicion, then 
 you may put me out of the office. 
 That may or may not be any matter 
 of consequence. But once you estab- 
 lish that rule you deprive — thwart the 
 very will of the Constitution which 
 divided the government into three 
 
860 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 branches: executive, legislative and 
 judicial — and the idea of checks and 
 balances so much festered and be- 
 lieved in by our forefathers will have 
 been brushed to the winds and no man 
 will be safe in the Governor’s office 
 except by the whim of the Legislature 
 which he must serve. Those are facts 
 whether you acquit me or not, it is a 
 matter of no consequehce to me. I 
 am here to call your attention to the 
 fact, not for my personal ambition, 
 because that may be brushed aside; 
 I have the right to call these atten- 
 tions to your mind and conscience, 
 then, if you brush it aside and say 
 that “I will not be bound by that rule 
 of right and wrong; I will not be 
 bound by the provisions of my Con- 
 stitution,” that becomes no more a 
 matter with me, it is a metier with 
 you and your conscience to be settled 
 with you and your God. 
 
 Now, my friends, let’s discuss the 
 issues. The first charge is that there 
 was paid from the funds of the Can- 
 yon City Normal School deposited 
 with the Temple State Bank on Au- 
 guest 23, 1915, a note of $5000 to- 
 gether with $650 interest due by 
 James E. Ferguson to the First Na- 
 tional Bank of Temple, Texas; that 
 said amount has never been refunded 
 to the State of Texas; that in part 
 payment of the total due for the 
 building of the Canyon City Normal 
 College he used other funds, a por- 
 tion of which belonged to the State 
 of Texas and the balance in his hands 
 as Governor and deposited to his 
 credit as Governor in the American 
 National Bank, which act constitutes 
 & violation of law. If there is a Sen- 
 ator in this Senate of any known te- 
 rgal ability who would claim for one 
 minute that the allegations in that 
 statement would support an indict- 
 ment or an information against any 
 defendant, then I mistake the judg- 
 ment and the legal ability of any 
 lawyer of any known ability. It does 
 not charge me with any crime or any 
 bad intention. They say it consti- 
 tutes a violation of the law. Then 
 let them say what law it is. But 
 let’s waive any technical defense. I 
 want to brush it all aside and state 
 the proposition that should control 
 your verdict upon that ground — 
 upon that charge — and that is: “Did 
 the Governor of Texas intend to steal 
 $5600 or $600 or any part of that 
 sum?” I throw down the gauntlet 
 
 and I say that that is the issue for 
 you to determine. If you believe deep 
 down in your heart as the result of 
 your honest conviction that I as the 
 Governor of the State intended to 
 steal or convert to my use and ben- 
 efit any part of that sum of money, 
 then I release you, whether you have 
 been my friend or not, to vote to 
 sustain that charge — from any obli- 
 gation to me — and if you believe that 
 why, then you vote to sustain that 
 .charge. If. on the other hand, you 
 have any doubt about it, if you do 
 not believe the Governor of the State 
 intended to steal $5600 or any part 
 thereof, then you violate your oaths 
 to your God and to your country 
 when you place a stigma upon my 
 name and vote to sustain that charge. 
 and the issue is one plainly to be de- 
 termined, whether it was theft or 
 not — I mean whether embezzlement 
 or not, because we admit it was right- 
 fully in my possession. Now, then, 
 let’s see if I intended to embezzle 
 that amount of money. When a man 
 goes out to commit a crime he con- 
 siders, if he is a man of ordinary 
 intelligence — and without any spirit 
 of seeking to brag, I believe I might 
 with perfect propriety, without tran- 
 scending any rule of modesty, claim 
 that I am a man of at least average 
 intelligence. Therefore I say when a 
 man of average intelligence goes out 
 to embezzle a sum of money he con- 
 siders the crime, he considers not only 
 what he is about to do, but the main 
 thing he would naturally consider 
 would be the probability of escaping 
 detection and the matter being found 
 out. Now, then, take that rule and 
 apply it to the fifty-six hundred dol- 
 lar item. I had given Governor Col- 
 quitt my receipt for every dollar of 
 the Canyon City fund. Bad man as 
 I might be — and some of them would 
 have you think I am — certainly I 
 could not have been so foolish to 
 have thought I might use that money ' 
 to my permanent use and benefit 
 without being found out. It is ri- 
 diculous, and you know it as well as 
 I, that I for a minute could have 
 thought, that I could have secaped 
 detection, with a receipt behind me 
 on one hand, and the building about 
 to be completed and the money be- 
 ing called for on the other. It is 
 absurd to think any reasonable man 
 could have hoped, bad a man as I 
 might have been, could have hoped 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 861 
 
 ( 
 
 that he could have escaped detection 
 and that a crime could have been 
 successfully committed. So that is 
 the issue in that fifty-six hundred 
 dollars. It is not a question of book- 
 keeping. Certainly the Senate is lib- 
 eral enough that you would not im- 
 peach the Governor of this State be- 
 cause the books had not been kept 
 straight. But, again, the charge 
 ticket — now, if I was going to con- 
 vert the money to my own use and 
 benefit, do you suppose that I would 
 have been so foolish as to have in- 
 structed the Temple State Bank to 
 charge my personal note to the Gov- 
 ernor’s account and to have put on 
 the very charge ticket itself that it 
 was for the note which I owed the 
 First National Bank of Temple and 
 had them to make a record of it and 
 send it down to me in Austin? Gen- 
 tlemen, if you will brush aside pas- 
 sion and prejudice, you are bound to 
 admit that the very way and the 
 manner and mode in which that 
 transaction occurred would convince 
 you that it was simply a mistake, an 
 erroneous mistake and an honest 
 mistake. Why, if I had wanted to 
 put that money to my use and benefit 
 all I would have had to have done 
 to absolutely cover it up so nobody 
 could have told anything about it 
 would have been to have gone to the 
 counter of the Temple State Bank 
 and issued my check as Governor for 
 the amount, put it in my pocket and 
 used it as I desired until the time 
 came to pay it back, and nobody 
 could ever have known anything 
 about what purpose the money was 
 used for. You know that, gentle- 
 men, as well as I do, and that ac- 
 counts for the astounding statement 
 made by Mr. Harris and the frank 
 admission made by him. They are 
 not asking you to impeach your Gov- 
 ernor upon the ground of that fifty- 
 six hundred dollar item alone, but 
 because it is a part of a junk pile 
 they want to unload on you, they say 
 that you ought to impeach the Gov- 
 ernor. 
 
 Now, my friends, you are not go- 
 ing to agree to any such proposition 
 that you can consider that altogeth- 
 er. They won’t let you vote on them 
 all together. The rule, it is recog- 
 nized, that you have got to come into 
 court and arise in your seat with the 
 obligation of your oath before you, 
 and vote upon your consciences, 
 
 whether this charge number one is 
 sufficient, whether I am guilty or not 
 guilty. And if you determine in your 
 mind that that one indictment is not 
 sufficient, you have got no right to 
 vote guilty upon that charge, because 
 you might think I have been guilty 
 of some other wrong in some other 
 proposition. You know that that 
 admission would ‘put them out of 
 court in any criminal proceeding in 
 this country, when a man would ad- 
 mit that the proof was not sufficient 
 upon any one count of the indictment 
 to have a conviction upon that count. 
 Now, my friends, they say that the 
 money was never returned to the 
 State of Texas. I asked them this 
 question, if the $5 600 has never been 
 returned to the State of Texas, then 
 where is it today, in whose posses- 
 sion is it, who has got it and who 
 owed it to the State; if the State has 
 never received the $5600 back then 
 someone else must have it. All right, 
 you say the Governor has got it. All 
 right, put your hand upon the obli- 
 gation to say I have had it; put your 
 hand upon the proof that shows I 
 have it. You can’t do it,, and when I 
 came to settle with Governor Hobby 
 as Acting Governor of the State, and 
 turned over to him funds in my 
 hands, if the $5600 has never been 
 returned to the State, then it was 
 my duty to turn it over to him, it 
 was his duty to demand that I turn 
 it over to him — that $5600 was still 
 in my possession when I was still 
 Governor of the State and settled 
 with Governor Hobby. When I filed 
 my answer here and said I didn’t 
 owe the State of Texas anything, then 
 counsel would have had the right to 
 file a charge and say, no, your state- 
 ment is not correct, you have still 
 got $5600 of the people’s money in 
 your possession, give it up. Oh, this 
 $5 600 item that has been clouding 
 somebody’s mind, the very time that 
 this charge was filed, as paid back to 
 the State, and paid to whom? It was 
 part of a fund belonging to the Can- 
 yon City Normal fund. Nobody de- 
 nies that up to the time that deposit 
 was made, that any other than the 
 Canyon City fund had been placed in 
 the Temple State Bank, and when the 
 final money was paid, $101,607 was 
 paid to the State, then every dollar 
 of the Canyon City mone 3 ’- was re- 
 turned to the State, and this charge 
 that said money has never been re- 
 
862 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 turned to the State must be incorrect 
 and there is not a scintilla of evi- 
 dence to show but what it is incor- 
 rect. Listen, when I settled with 
 Governor Hobby I turned over every 
 dollar in my hands. They don’t 
 question and won’t question that 
 there is another nickel remaining in 
 my hands except for the following 
 purpose: “Received of James E. Fer- 
 guson, formerly Governor of Texas, 
 the sum of $4693.49,” listen — “same 
 being $1546.85 to the credit of the 
 King’s Highway Fund, $30.60 to the 
 credit of the Storm Refund Fund, 
 and $3116.40 to the credit of the 
 Texas National Guard Funds, now 
 in the hands of the said James E. 
 Ferguson, and same is received” — 
 listen — “same is received by me, Act- 
 ing Governor, from the said James 
 E. Ferguson.” A clear receipt for 
 every dollar that ever came into my 
 hands as Governor of this State. The 
 $5600 paid back to the State in April 
 last year; no fund remaining in my 
 hands except these funds for which 
 he receipted me, but they say I did 
 not turn it over to the State. Now, 
 listen: it is admitted that the King’s 
 Highway Fund and Storm Refund 
 Fund was private money. No man 
 has contended or will contend, or can 
 contend that it is a part of the State 
 money. Therefore, I could not be 
 convicted for not turning that fund 
 over to the State. Oh, but they say 
 there is $3116 National Guard fund. 
 It gets back to the same proposition; 
 did the Governor of this State in- 
 tend to steal any part of that fund, 
 or embezzle it, or put it to his use 
 and benefit? Now then, I told the 
 Legislature in January of this year, 
 reported to them that I had this 
 money and in March when I was upon 
 the stand I told them again about it. 
 It was a matter of discussion and 
 within the knowledge of everybody. 
 The Legislature did not direct what 
 should be done with the fund, there- 
 fore what could I do with the money 
 but keep it? I could not throw it 
 in the creek, I could not put it in 
 the Treasury, because there was no 
 fund to which you could put it. You 
 couldn’t put it in the Highway or the 
 Storm fund because that was private 
 facts about the $5600 item. 
 
 Now, the next charge is that I 
 had $101,000 of the Canyon City 
 fund; that I aplied it to my own 
 use and benefit in that 1 deposited 
 
 part of it in the Temple State Bank. 
 Now, my friends, I want to call your 
 attention right here to facts that cer- 
 tainly bear upon the question of 
 whether I wanted to profit out of 
 that money. When the first deposit 
 was sent to Temple, opening up the 
 Governor’s account, I had the secre- 
 tary to write a letter and which was 
 exhibited here after an attempt to 
 withhold it from your information, 
 had been made, stating “I simply 
 want you to keep this money on de- 
 posit, don’t you undertake to make 
 any loans on account of that de- 
 posit,” meaning of course not only 
 that deposit but the rest of the items 
 which made up that deposit. If I 
 had wanted to profit by it certainly 
 I would not have written that letter 
 to my own private bank telling them 
 explicitly not to loan any money 
 against that account. But they say 
 I did not put it in the Treasury. 
 There is the great issue made in this 
 case. I can deal with all the other 
 charges in reference to the Secretary 
 of State, in reference to the Com- 
 missioner of Insurance and Banking, 
 in reference to this fund I can treat 
 that question altogether and in the 
 interest of time I will do so. Now, 
 they say that I should put it in the 
 Treasury, and they say that I vio- 
 lated Article 96 of the Criminal 
 Code, which provides — listen! that 
 any agent of the government who is 
 by law a receiver or depositary of 
 money, or who shall fail to put 
 money in the Treasury when it is 
 open, shall be guilty of a felony, 
 with such and such a penalty. Now, 
 then, as I say, here in the great 
 crime: when I came to Austin what 
 did I find here? I found, as 1 
 stated in my testimony, and it has 
 not been denied in any particular 
 here, that for twenty years nobody 
 had paid any attention to the statute 
 — because, why, the Supreme Court, 
 the Attorney General, the Secretary 
 of State and the other officials who 
 as incidental to their duties came 
 into possession of money were not 
 by law receivers or depositaries of 
 money, and therefore that act could 
 not apply to them; the receipt of 
 their money was only an incident 
 to the other duties of their offices. 
 Therefore, even though for the sake 
 of argument it might be considered 
 it had been wrongfully done, as long 
 as it was done by an officer of the 
 government — unless it was done by 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 863 
 
 an officer of the government who 
 was a receiver or depositary of 
 money it could be no violation of 
 law. But, oh, they say, I ought to 
 have kept the Secretary of State 
 from putting that money in any 
 bank, and that shows just how un- 
 reasonable the charges are. They 
 contend in one breath that I ought 
 to be impeached because I under- 
 took to tell the Board — suggest to 
 the Board of Regents what it should 
 do, and in the next breath they say 
 I ought to be impeached because I 
 did not tell some officer of the gov- 
 ernment what he should not do; in 
 one breath they say it is a crime to 
 try to suggest to the head of a de- 
 partment what he should do; in the 
 next breath they say it is a crime 
 and you ought to be impeached be- 
 cause you failed to tell some fellow 
 what he ought to do. The whole 
 proposition is, this whole charge and 
 this whole thing is founded upon 
 one fact, that I put that money in 
 a Temple bank and not in an Austin 
 bank. I wouldn’t be on charge here 
 today if the Austin bankers and the 
 University crowd had not got to- 
 gether and said, “This man won’t 
 do; he has come down to Austin 
 here, he has undertook to exercise 
 the rights given to him under the 
 Constitution to inquire into what we 
 are doing out at the University; he 
 has undertook to say that this right 
 which we have so long enjoyed here 
 in Austin to have all the people’s 
 money for our use and benefit can 
 not continue; we can not have any 
 such usurper of our sources of gain 
 and orofit.” Then they begin to get 
 together, and this thing begun to 
 start. That is the whole crime. It 
 does not make any difference, gen- 
 tlemen, whether I* owned stock in 
 that bank or not. It is back to the 
 simple question of whether I had 
 the right to put the money in the 
 bank until such time as it was re- 
 quired by law: 
 
 Why, you say that that is a crime 
 because I had stock in the bank. No- 
 body ever considered it so. The Uni- 
 versity itself, as the record shows, 
 had on deposit with the American Na- 
 tional Bank in Austin an account run- 
 ning for four long years, and I stated 
 that I had been informed that it had 
 been running for ten years before 
 that, and that was not denied, show- 
 ing what? That they had an account 
 there running never lower than $38,- 
 
 000.00, and up to as high as $157,000.- 
 00, a continuous account that the Uni- 
 versity people had had for four long 
 years, and nobody ever got together 
 and concocted a plan to indict some- 
 body or impeach somebody for putting 
 that money into the American Na- 
 tional Bank of Austin without inter- 
 est. It is a great crime to put money 
 into the Temple Bank, but a member 
 of the Board of Regents, Major Little- 
 field, who owns only, not one-fourth 
 of the stock in the bank, like I did, 
 but who owned the controlling inter- 
 est in the American National Bank, 
 in Austin, he is permitted to do that 
 and is held up as a great citizen 
 when he takes the money of the Uni- 
 versity and puts it for four long 
 years in his bank, without interest, 
 a continuous and profitable account. 
 And yet, because I, owning a minor- 
 ity of the stock in the bank for no 
 account and no profit, put for thirty 
 or fifty-five days a large deposit in 
 the Temple State Bank, a great idea 
 of right and wrong gets into the 
 minds of some people and you are 
 here called upon to rend in twain the 
 character and reputation of the Gov- 
 ernor of Texas for doing a thing 
 which the University itself has done 
 for these long years. And yet, some of 
 you are going to do it; you haven’t 
 got the nerve to stand up in the maj- 
 esty of your manhood and say, “I will 
 not make flesh of one and foul of 
 the other.” You haven’t got nerve 
 enough to say, you are not fair 
 enough to say, that what one man has 
 done is no more a crime that what 
 another man has done! The man 
 owning the majority of the stock of 
 a bank, Littlefield’s bank, $157,000.00, 
 an average balance of $185,000.00 for 
 four years, without interest, a great 
 citizen, a member of the Board of Re- 
 gents, honored and respected by them, 
 and held up to the citizens of Texas 
 as a great man! And yet, Jim Fer- 
 guson, a criminal, a felon, that ought 
 to be rended in twain, to satisfy the 
 passion and prejudice of the hour, 
 simply because $250,000.00 stayed in 
 his bank for forty-five days! Ah! 
 your case would not last thirty min- 
 utes if the passion and prejudice and 
 politics that are in this case were 
 brushed aside and this case were 
 tried upon the oaths of men who 
 would seek to do their duty between 
 man and man. 
 
 And that brings us to the big ques- 
 tion, the University. There is but 
 
864 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 one question in this whole contro- 
 versy. Why, when John McKay was 
 indicted down here and he told some 
 of his friends that he considered it an 
 outrage, he was told that it was but 
 an incident to the University ques- 
 tion, and because the Governor had 
 vetoed the University appropriation 
 bill. This very same paper, the Aus- 
 tin American, that this morning 
 printed that statement, that infamous 
 calumny against the character and 
 good intentions of my friends, stat- 
 ing that they had broken faith with 
 me, that they were no longer my 
 friends, the Austin American, which 
 printed that infamous statement, had 
 told the people of Austin, as their 
 mouthpiece, what this great issue 
 was, and I want to read it to you. 
 Under date of August 26th, Sunday 
 morning, headed, (reading): 
 
 “The University Triumphant. 
 
 “Lieutenant Governor W. P. Hob- 
 by is now Acting Governor of Texas, 
 and Governor James E. Ferguson 
 stands suspended and is out of office 
 pending his trial by the Senate on 
 twenty-one articles of impeachment 
 adopted by the House of Representa- 
 tives after an investigation lasting 
 ocer three weeks. The trial in the 
 Senate will begin next Wednesday. 
 The investigation and the causes 
 leading up to it have been thorough- 
 ly discussed and are well understood, 
 and the results obtained by the of- 
 ficial vote in the House and the pre- 
 sentment of the articles of impeach- 
 ment to the Senate have brought to 
 the people of Texas a victory,” 
 
 Listen — 
 
 “And the presentment of the ar- 
 ticles of impeachment to the Senate 
 have brought to the people of Texas 
 a victory of such vast importance 
 that they can afford to ignore any 
 criticism the outside world may 
 make. They have saved the Univer- 
 sity, and that was the big question 
 involved.” 
 
 Involved in what? In the present- 
 ment of twenty-one articles of im- 
 peachment against the Governor of 
 Texas. That was the big question in- 
 volved. 
 
 “The Austin American believes, 
 and so stated at the beginning of 
 the investigation, that barring all 
 other questions involved, impeach- 
 ment proceedings would follow, that 
 that was the only way in which the 
 appropriation sufficient to maintain 
 
 the University for this next two years 
 could be obtained.” 
 
 The Constitution stood in the way. 
 It had been legally vetoed, and the 
 only way in which they could get the 
 money with which to continue their 
 unholy spree of an educated hierar- 
 chy out there, was to rend in twain 
 the Governor of this State and bring 
 his fair name and the name of his 
 family, articles of impeachment — 
 not because of a matter of policy, 
 but because of a matter of appropri- 
 ation; not because of any right or 
 wrong, but because of weighing of so 
 much gold against human happiness, 
 so much greed for lust and profit 
 against human character, — that was 
 the big question involved and that 
 was the only way of securing an ap- 
 propriation sufficient to maintain the 
 University for the next two years. It 
 was of no consequence to them, and, 
 as Mr. Harris said, that out of twen- 
 ty-one trials added, they could not 
 put their finger on a single item that 
 they thought was sufficient to im- 
 peach the Governor — but that was the 
 only way that they could get money, 
 money, money, the root of all evil. 
 
 (Laughter in the galleries). 
 
 The only way that they could do 
 it was to rend in twain the Governor 
 of the State! 
 
 The Chair: If we have any repe- 
 tition of that (referring to laughter 
 in the galleries), the galleries shall 
 be cleare.d. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: It certainly 
 ought to be done, Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: It will be. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: This is not a 
 vaudeville performance, and those 
 people ought to understand it, sitting 
 in the galleries. 
 
 The Chair: The Chair warned all 
 the visitors yesterday that we will 
 not tolerate any sort of demonstra- 
 tion. I repeat the warning now, 
 and will not give it any more. 
 
 Governor Ferguson (resuming) : 
 And so, my friends, the article goes 
 on: 
 
 “When the articles of impeach- 
 ment against Governor Ferguson 
 were filed in the Senate, he was au- 
 tomatically suspended from office, 
 and the Lieutenant Governor became 
 Acting Governor. The Senate some- 
 time ago passed the appropriation 
 bill, providing funds to maintain the 
 University. This measure is now in 
 the hands of the Committee on Ap- 
 propriations in the House, and will 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 865 
 
 be reported back when the House re- 
 convenes, and will be promptly- 
 passed, Acting Governor Hobby will 
 approve it, and the doors of the great 
 Texas institution of learning will 
 open as usual, at the beginning of the 
 fall term. There is no necessity now 
 for dewelling on the sidelights of 
 this investigation or the personal 
 feeling engendered. These could 
 have been of but minor importance 
 as compared with the one real great 
 question for which the people of the 
 whole State are working for the pres- 
 ervation of the University and are 
 taking it out of politics.” ^ 
 
 And so, in the destiny of men, it 
 has been decreed by fate that I, as 
 Governor of the State, shall suffer 
 the penalty in order that the gold 
 and the money may be given to those 
 who desire to perpetuate the Univer- 
 sity. And what kind of a University? 
 Nobody has said, nobody did say up 
 to sometime last year that I was 
 not a friend of the University. I said 
 in my platform, away back yonder 
 in 1913, “I am heartily in favor of 
 any legislation looking to the im- 
 provement and advancement of our 
 public schools and the A. and M. 
 College, and our State University. 
 In the matter of appropriations for 
 such purposes, I would only be re- 
 stricted by the ability of the State 
 to. pay and an economical expenditure 
 of the public money.” What Gover- 
 nor in Texas ever had the nerve to 
 stand up before the people of Texas 
 and say that the limit for which ed- 
 ucational appropriations should ex- 
 ceed should only be controlled by an 
 honest and economical expenditure 
 of the public money. “If we get our 
 money’s worth, let us buy all the edu- 
 cation we q^in pay for, and let us be- 
 gin with the little schoolhouse on 
 the country road.” 
 
 There was the trouble. In my 
 message to the Legislature of this 
 year, I further stated: “I am in favor 
 of liberal appropriations for the sup- 
 port of our university and colleges, 
 but for every dollar appropriated for 
 such purpose there should be at least 
 three dollars set aside for the aid of 
 the high schools in the towns and 
 the graded schools in the country.” 
 
 There is where my undoing start- 
 ed, that is the great crime that J, 
 committed. You, gentlemen, if you 
 must lay aside your oath for a min- 
 ute, if you won’t decide this question 
 
 upon the merits of the case, then I 
 want to suggest this to you: That 
 when you go home to your people 
 whom you represent in this Senate, 
 give them an account of your stew- 
 ardship. I want you to decide for 
 yourselves the question of whether 
 you were with Ferguson upon the 
 proposition that for every dollar that 
 you give to the University you have 
 got to give three to the country 
 schools and the high schools of the 
 country. You cannot escape that 
 proposition. The people are going 
 to demand that you, as honest men, 
 representing them, have got to stand 
 up and be bold enough, brave and 
 honest enough to say whether you 
 are for or against that proposition. 
 I make my bed, and I say that it 
 even ought to be more than three 
 dollars. You have got to get on one 
 side or the other. You vote to im- 
 peach me as Governor of this State, 
 and when you go home you have got 
 to be honest enough fo tell the peo- 
 ple that the big issue involved was 
 the University, and the Governor said 
 he wanted to give three dollars to 
 the country schools and to the high 
 schools of the country, to one dollar 
 to the University, because I disagreed 
 With him, I voted to impeach him, 
 and I have come now to ask you to 
 sustain me upon that record. Oh, 
 but you say that that was not the 
 trouble! I will prove it, I will prove 
 that that was the only issue, and that 
 that is where the trouble started, and 
 I will prove it with proof that is con- 
 vincing, even as the sacred obliga- 
 tion of the testimony in Isreal. 
 Listen: When the student mob wait- 
 ed upon me down here, they held a 
 meeting out on the campus of the 
 University, and they sent down to 
 Leon Springs to get the President of 
 the Students’ Council, a member of 
 the Legislature, to come back to Aus- 
 tin and make the key note speech, 
 which would represent the minds and 
 the sentiment and the spirit of the 
 University powers out there. Here 
 is what he said: “In the speech made 
 on the campus previous to the pa- 
 rade to the Capitol, by George Peddy, 
 a member of the Legislature from 
 Shelby County, and now a member 
 of the Training Camp at Leon 
 Springs, as reported by the Austin 
 American, we find one of the real 
 reasons for this fight,” — 
 
 Now, listen: 
 
866 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 “The Austin American says,” — 
 
 You can’t discredit them, because 
 there has been no tim,e for the last 
 three weeks when you read that pa- 
 per in the morning that it has not 
 said something, either by implication 
 or in express terms, against my pri- 
 vate record, or against me in some 
 way or other. Listen here is what 
 the Austin American account says, 
 and I put this in the veto message; 
 it has never been questioned by any- 
 body, I swore to it over in the House 
 with George Peddy looking at me as 
 close as Mr. Cope there, and he did 
 not deny it, and no member of the 
 faculty of the University has ever 
 denied it — and this fact stands un- 
 contradicted before the people of 
 Texas. Listen: 
 
 “In a strong voice, keyed to the 
 situation, Mr. Peddy began by say- 
 ing that he and the Governor had met 
 on the floor of the House in the dis- 
 cussion of University matters before. 
 He thanked the students for having 
 elected him as President of the Stu- 
 dents’ Council and said that the pres- 
 ent moment was the most critical in 
 the history of the University.” 
 
 Now, listen to this: 
 
 “The fight started, he declared, 
 when the Governor began his rural 
 school campaign and appealed to the 
 people of the State in a prejudicial 
 manner.” 
 
 Ah, they would give $50,000 out 
 of their Ex-Students’ Association 
 down here if they could recall that 
 statement. They hushed his mouth 
 ud right there, and he never was 
 after that time permitted to speak 
 in the House of Representatives, or 
 anywhere else. That fellow had 
 “spilled the beans” for them, he “let 
 the cat out of the wallet;” so the 
 trouble started when Governor Fer- 
 guson came to Austin and said that 
 he wanted to give three dollars to 
 the country schools and to the high 
 schools of the country for every dol- 
 lar to the University. So, you can 
 begin to see why the Austin Ameri- 
 can, in its editorial said that “The 
 one big question involved in the im- 
 peachment proceedings was the Uni- 
 versity appropriation. Ah! my 
 friends, when I came to Austin 
 elected on that platform for liberal 
 appropriations for the University, 
 and when I had approved that appro- 
 priation for $711,000 a year, nearly 
 twice as much as any Governor had 
 ever approved for the University, 
 
 the people of Austin thought I was 
 the biggest man that ever sat in 
 the Governor’s chair, and, notwith- 
 standing I had never been past the 
 sixth grade in school, they gave me 
 banquets, they wined and dined me 
 and introduced me as “The Great 
 Educational Governor;” as long as 
 I would give them money to carry 
 on that unholy aristocracy out there, 
 which they are seeking to perpetuate, 
 I was a great Governor, and I ought 
 to be worshipped and bowed down 
 to; but when in the exercise of my 
 duty as Governor I said I wanted to 
 know “What are you doing with this 
 money, what are you going to do 
 with it, and what have you got to 
 say? What are you giving $300 to 
 the University student, and only fif- 
 teen dollars — seven and a haif dol- 
 lars for the boy in the country?” 
 Then they begin to revolt, and the 
 one big issue, as the Austin Ameri- 
 can said, was the impeachment of 
 the Governor. And that is why I 
 stand before you today, like Daniel 
 in the lion’s den, with those people 
 clamoring for my destruction, be- 
 cause I have raised my voice in 
 behalf of a million and a quarter 
 school children in Texas! Why, my 
 friends, I said the University was 
 extravagant, I say so now. Why, 
 they have got a paid salaried em- 
 ploye, as the record shows, of one 
 paid salaried employe for every eight 
 students at the University, costing 
 the State of Texas an average of 
 $1338 per annum. I call his atten- 
 tion to that fact, and then the im- 
 peachment proceedings began to grow 
 stronger and the Ex-Students began 
 to meet, they began to deposit their 
 money, as the record shows, down in 
 the American National Bank, and 
 the sentiment began to' grow, be- 
 cause I did not have any money to 
 raise, to answer, to fight the thing 
 back with, if I had wanted to, be- 
 cause I stood by myself, as Gover- 
 nor, upon my record, and with no 
 great bank account behind me. The 
 sentiment is rampant around Austin 
 demanding that the Governor be im- 
 peached. Ah! but my friends, you 
 can impeach me, yes, if that is any 
 personal satisfaction, all right, but I 
 have got the satisfaction, the con- 
 sciousness in my heart, that I have 
 raised my voice in behalf of the 
 great yeomanry of the great State, 
 and, as Lamar said, the diffusion of 
 knowledge, that knowledge that 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 867 
 
 everybody could get some of, because 
 I said that a few favored people down 
 at Austin are getting more than their 
 share, and, as the Austin American 
 said, the one big question was, be- 
 cause the Governor had sought to 
 raise this question, therefore, im- 
 peachment proceedings followed. 
 
 Ah! I said in my platform, “Let 
 us begin at the little country 
 schoolhouse by the side of the road.” 
 They are the people that you have 
 got to answer to when you go home 
 — the honest people that make the 
 wealth of this country, that live out 
 in the | country, that great band of 
 citizenship, who neither sits in the 
 seat of the scornful, who neither 
 hail the cynic’s band, but who pre- 
 fer to live in the little house beside 
 the road, and to be a friend to man, 
 they are the people that are sus- 
 taining me in this fight, they ^re the 
 people you have got to answer to 
 when this great controversy goes to 
 the people. 
 
 Oh, it is a question of whether it 
 shall be a democracy or autocracy, 
 whether a few people shall say that 
 “nobody shall inquire into us and we 
 will impeach any Governor that has 
 the nerve or the honesty of purpose 
 to say that he shall go thus far and 
 no further.” Oh, but they said yes- 
 terday, that “if you will resign, the 
 thing will be dropped.” I would 
 rather be impeached a thousand 
 times than by any admission or act 
 of mine to say that I had ever been 
 thwarted from my purpose, stated in 
 that platform of 1913, to raise my 
 voice in behalf of the 110,000 school 
 children in Texas who had never 
 crossed the threshold of a public 
 school. Oh, General Crane will tell 
 you that I committed a great crime 
 against the boys and girls out at 
 the State University. My friends, 
 they committed the first crime after 
 they had been fostered and support- 
 ed by fabulous amounts from my 
 administration, which were seven 
 and a half times more than the aver- 
 age that had been appropriated to 
 the University for thirty years! 
 They then wanted more, and became 
 I wanted to discuss with the Regents 
 what we should do with the money, 
 not only the students, but the fac- 
 ulty of the University attended the 
 meeting, and in less than a hundred 
 feet of the President of the Univer- 
 sity they marched down t.o the Gov- 
 ernor’s office, who was not bothering 
 
 them, but who was in his office talk- 
 ing to /the University Regents in 
 whom the Constitution had placet 
 the power or the government of that 
 institution, and with a defiant atti- 
 tude, as Mr. Butler has told you, 
 shaking their fists at the Governor, 
 making faces at him, yelling at him, 
 and they tried to intimidate — but it 
 didn’t work. I have got my con- 
 sciousness, I have got my satisfac- 
 tion and I have laid down the pre- 
 cedent that no mob, though it may 
 be organized on the University cam- 
 pus, can in the future come down 
 to the Governor’s office and tell him 
 what to do. A mob that is organ- 
 ized at the University, is just as 
 much a mob, just as much in defiance 
 of the law as a mob that is organized 
 in a back alley or some secluded 
 place in town. Ah! they say, that 
 the Governor of Texas, because he is 
 Governor, shall be held to a higher 
 standard than anybody else. And 
 yet, those young men out there, hav- 
 ing had the advantags of a free 
 school education, having been given 
 the privileges of a University, they 
 say that by this action of theirs, that 
 they, in future, shall have the right 
 to organize a mob and go down and 
 wait upon the Governor and make 
 him do what they want him to do. 
 That is the issue you have to de- 
 cide before you vote to impeach me. 
 You want to be able to go home and 
 tell your people that if you had been 
 Governor and a mob had waited on 
 you, that you would have had the 
 nerve to say, “I defy you now, and I 
 will cut your appropriation off right 
 here.” But whenever you take from 
 the power of the Governor and instill 
 in his mind a fear that he cannot do 
 that, then every Governor will be 
 waited on by a mob for forty yeajs 
 to come, because they will say, “We 
 put it over Ferguson, and we will 
 put it over every other man.” 
 
 Ah! but they say I made unlawful 
 and unfair criticisms against the 
 University. Listen: I want to call 
 your attention to what were some of 
 the things I said. They said that T 
 said some of them were liars. All 
 right. I said that. Are you going 
 to impeach a Governor for that? On 
 the floor of this Senate I have heard 
 men called liars, and yet nobody 
 would think for a minute that some- 
 one might be impeached. They said 
 that I said that they were grafters. 
 
868 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 They admitted that they went and 
 changed a voucher to get $19.00 out 
 of the public Treasury! The amount 
 of money cuts no figure. Why, you 
 talk about applying your rule to 
 same fellow in high station being ex- 
 pected to deliver more, and that 
 more can be expected of him than 
 you can of one in lower* station. 
 What do you think of a President of 
 the University who admits, ana the 
 record is uncontradicted, that he 
 went in to the Auditor and says, 
 “You are to change that voucher and 
 change the facts,” in order that some- 
 body might get $19.00 out the pub- 
 lic Treasury, that they admit now 
 that they were not entitled to? The 
 smallness of the amount adds to the 
 enormity of the crime, and, therefore, 
 I say, I was fully justified in making 
 the statement. But, they say, I was 
 opposed to Dr. Vinson. I was. I said 
 then, and I say now, that I do not 
 think he is a proper man for the 
 place. Now, let us see what the, rec- 
 ord is on that, the uncontradicted 
 record; you are bound to admit with 
 me, that if he was guilty of the 
 things, and the statements that 1 
 made about him were true, then the 
 people of the State were entitled to 
 a better President than I said he 
 was. Now, listen, here is what I said 
 about him (reading) : 
 
 “In my opinion, the University has 
 not a proper President. He has 
 neither that experience as a teacher 
 nor sufficient educational attainments 
 that would qualify him to fill this 
 important place.” 
 
 He admitted that he took a sum- 
 mer school course in the University 
 of Chicago, that he graduated in 
 Austin College up at Sherman, and 
 that he had graduated in a preach- 
 er’s school up here somewhere. 
 Now, ask yourselves the question, 
 with forty other professors out there 
 having degrees far above and beyond 
 him, whether that statement was 
 warranted by his own admissions, 
 that he had only attended a summer 
 school in Chicago, that he had grad- 
 uated at a preacher’s school, and in 
 Austin College at Sherman. Is it 
 possible that with all the money we 
 have given them to support that 
 great institution that we cannot get 
 a man who has more educational at- 
 tainments than that? Now, listen: 
 “His management of an institution” 
 — here is what I said about him, and 
 
 put it in the veto message, — “his 
 management of an institution 
 previous to fiis promotion to Ihe 
 presidency of the State University 
 was a failure.” That fact stands un- 
 contradicted in this record. Mr. 
 Fiset testified that Wilbur Allen said 
 that he had wrecked that Presby- 
 terian school. That fact stands un- 
 contradicted in this record. “And 
 his record there,” — listen, — “his rec- 
 ord there by no means recommends 
 him to be employed at $6,000 a year 
 by the people of Texas.” Anything 
 wrong about that criticism? Has the 
 Governor of the State got no right 
 to make a criticism like that? Has 
 the Governor of the State got no 
 right to suggest that we ought to 
 have a man of some educational at- 
 tainments at the University of Texas? 
 Has the Governor of the State got 
 no right to call attention to the fact 
 that he had made a failure of the 
 institution where he was? And 
 don’t you know that if that state- 
 ment had been untrue, and if his 
 record at the theological seminary, 
 just across the street from the Uni- 
 versity, if that statement had been 
 untrue, they would have had wit- 
 nesses here, they would have had 
 every Presbyterian from the confines 
 of Texas to come here and tell you 
 how well they were satisfied with 
 his management of that school. But 
 the echo says, “Where are they?” 
 Wilbur Allen stands uncontradicted 
 — -whatever you may think about 
 him. I stand uncontradicted that he 
 was a failure, that he had wrecked 
 that school; and yet, when they had 
 never paid anybody else but $5,000 
 a year, they took a man from across 
 the street who had made a failure 
 of a school and gave him $6,000 a 
 year! Are you going to go home and 
 tell your people that you impeached 
 the Governor of this State because 
 he called attention to the uncontra- 
 dicted fact that they had a President 
 of the University of Texas who ^as 
 getting $6,000 a year and who had 
 made an utter failure of his educa- 
 tional career? You have got to get 
 on one side or the other, there is no 
 escape from the proposition, and as 
 a matter of fact, it is known in Aus- 
 tin that I am correct, that that school 
 is closed, and as a result of this 
 man’s management; the papers were 
 full of it at the time; that the man, 
 Dr. Anderson, succeeded him, said 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 869 
 
 that because its financial condition 
 had been misrepresented to him, he 
 asked to be relieved from his con- 
 tract with the Presbyterian synod; 
 it stands out in bold relief that you 
 have gone and given $6,000 a year 
 to a man to be President of the 
 State University who had made only 
 a failure, in that way. 
 
 Oh, my friends, the Constitution 
 says — they say I am striking down 
 the Constitution, they say that I 
 ought to be impeached because the 
 Constitution provides that we shall 
 have a University of the first class. 
 Yes, that is true, it provides that. 
 But that same Constitution provides 
 how you shall expend that money. 
 I didn’t raise this quesaion, I didn’t 
 start this fight on the University; 
 they started it themselves, and 1 
 told them over in the House that I 
 was sorry that they had raised that 
 question; but as they had charged 
 me with striking down the Constitu- 
 tion, I had a right to quote the Con- 
 stitution. So, the Constitution says 
 that all appropriations made by the 
 State of Texas shall be done — what 
 with? Not given all in one year to 
 them, to spend $300 per student, but 
 it shall be invested in bonds, after it 
 is put into the Treasury, and the 
 Legislature can only appropriate the 
 interest on the money. And yet, they 
 say that I struck down the Constitu- 
 tion! My friends, let me tell you 
 about it. I realize what some people 
 are expected to be done here, and 
 I want to tell you I have never fal- 
 tered, and I am not going to falter, 
 because I know what the Constitu- 
 tion is, because it is so plain that he 
 who runs may read. That appropria- 
 tion is illegal out there — it is illegal 
 from two grounds, and you have got 
 to go home and defend it. The first 
 ground is that, as shown by the tax 
 board records down here, that last 
 year’s appropriations — I mean the 
 appropriations made by this year’s 
 Legislature for the next two years, 
 exceeds by seven cents the constitu- 
 tional limit of thirty-five cents. It 
 would take forty-two cents before 
 the University was made, to take care 
 of the appropriations made by the 
 last Legislature at its call session. 
 Now, then, after you have exceeded 
 the constitutional limit by seven 
 cents, you come along again and put 
 about four cents more for the Uni- 
 versity, when you said in your 
 
 resolution that war is upon 
 the people, that famine is 
 in. the western part of our State, 
 that poverty is abroad in the land, 
 a.nd the cry of humanity beckons 
 you to save us from the trouble and 
 from misfortune and starvation — 
 when all that is over the country, 
 when the tax limit is seven cents 
 above the constitutional limit, you 
 then put upon the backs of the peo- 
 ple four cents more by appropriating 
 $1,640,000 for the fortunate boys 
 and girls out at the University, who 
 have already had a common school 
 education at the expense of the State 
 and you think that you are going 
 to make me, under the passions of 
 the hour, stop me from raising that 
 question? I will tell you, I am not 
 going to stop it, we are going to see, 
 since you have raised this question 
 and have pursued me here with it, 
 we are going to see whether some- 
 body will take care of the Constitu- 
 tion or not. Ah! they talk about a 
 little $2400 that the Legislature gave 
 to the Governor of Texas to buy sup- 
 plies at the Mansion with. And yet 
 you yell, and you rant about the Con- 
 stitution, about that little item, and 
 you don’t say a word about the 
 $1,640,000 that has been given after 
 the constitutional limit has been ex- 
 ceeded, and for a purpose which the 
 Constitution itself says you can not 
 give it! You talk about the Consti- 
 tution. Be frank, and go before the 
 people of this State and say whether 
 you want the Constitution enforced 
 in one respect, and that you haven’t 
 got nerve enough to enforce it, when 
 it is already given to the favored 
 few. Oh, that is the issue. You may 
 put upon me impeachment, I will 
 never falter from my duty. You 
 talk obut the Constitution! They 
 talk about $2400 that the Constitu- 
 tion said I should not have at the 
 Mansion, and. yet the record shows 
 that the University of Texas has used 
 $7,000,000 in its history in defiance 
 of the Constitution, and you haven’t 
 got nerve enough, because there is a 
 student mob out there, and there is 
 an Ex-Students Association in Texas 
 who might have some political in- 
 fluence. Some people haven’t got the 
 nerve to stand up and say that, be- 
 cause of your University you have 
 got no more right to take money be- 
 yond the limits of the Constitution 
 than anybody else. And that is the 
 
870 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 question you have got to meet be- 
 fore the people. I am going to raise 
 it on you. Just as well understand 
 it. You have held it constitutional, 
 and I am going to put it on until it 
 burns like a mustard plaster, and we 
 might just as well understand it. 
 If this thing is persisted in, this right 
 of coming down to Austin with a 
 mob and telling the Governor of the 
 State what he must do, and telling 
 the Board of Regents what they 
 must do, you persist in that proposi- 
 tion, and if I read the signs of the 
 times right, the people of Texas are 
 ready to vote upon a question to 
 remove this University from Austin 
 to some place where they can’t send 
 the people down to pack the galler- 
 ies, where they can’t send the mob 
 down to intimidate the Governor, 
 where the representatives of the peo- 
 ple in the full majesty of their inde- 
 pendence will be left free to do that 
 which their consciences tells them 
 they ought to do, where they shall be 
 left free to obey the mandate of the 
 Constitution, plainly and explicitly 
 written. Oh, my friends, these are 
 the great issues involved. All these 
 other charges that they have made 
 can be with the fact that Mr. Harris 
 said that none of them were suffi- 
 cient to justify impeachment; he said 
 he did not believe that I wanted to 
 make the interest on the money, but 
 that I wanted to borrow some money 
 from the bank. My friends, the 
 other proposition is, I didn’t tell you 
 here where I got the $156,000. Some 
 Senators have thought that I have 
 been guilty of impropriety in not 
 divulging that information. You are 
 sworn to try me according to the law 
 and the evidence, and, therefore, you 
 have got no right, if you want to do 
 honestly, if you want to be fair about 
 it, you have got no right to deprive 
 me of any legal rights; and if you 
 do that in order to gratify some per- 
 sonal spleen or some personal ani- 
 mosity, then you become a greater 
 offender than I could ever possibly 
 be, if I had been guilty of all the 
 charges which they charge me with 
 here. I said on the stand that I be- 
 lieved under my oath that I had the 
 right to decline to tell where I got 
 the money. Now, then, I was either 
 right about that, or I was wrong 
 about it, there is no middle ground 
 about it, I had a right to withhold 
 the information or I didn’t have the 
 
 right. If I didn’t have the right, 
 then if you have got a mode of trial 
 prescribed in the Constitution, you 
 had the right to punish me for con- 
 tempt. If you have not got a mode 
 of trial provided in the Constitution, 
 then your whole proceeding is a null- 
 ity. It shows you that you did not 
 believe you had that right, neither 
 the House nor the Senate would 
 move to fine me for contempt. Oh, 
 you are talking about the law of the 
 country, and the courts of the coun- 
 try. If you honestly believed that 
 that was the right position, then the 
 courts were open to you to put me in 
 iail for failure to answer the ques- 
 tion. Go home and explain to your 
 people why, when you condemn me 
 for that, why you did not exhaust the 
 remedy given you by law? The rea- 
 son is, I fancy, that some astute 
 members of the Senate had read the 
 Constitution and they had discovered 
 that there were no means or manner, 
 or mode provided for the impeach- 
 ment of the Governor, and that if 
 they went into the courts the whole 
 thing would be held a nullity; and 
 that was the reason the question was 
 not raised here. Ah! but you say, 
 “You ought to tell anyhow.” Under 
 ordinary circumstances I believe that 
 is true, and I think that the record 
 will disclose that there never was a 
 man in Texas that had told more de- 
 tails of his private business than I 
 had told up to the time I declined to 
 answer that question. 
 
 Two investigations had been held 
 in Austin and my business and my 
 wife’s business, and my bank’s busi- 
 ness and my cattle company’s busi- 
 ness and my coal busines and every- 
 thing that I had had any business 
 connection with for the past twenty 
 years were gone into and laid bare, 
 and as the result of it, continued per- 
 secution and continued criticism and 
 investigation of my private business. 
 I have suffered a great loss in my lit- 
 tle fortune and it looked as though I 
 was going to lose it all and would be- 
 come as a poor boy washing dishes 
 at twenty dollars a month, and step 
 by step, and by economy, tending to 
 my business, I, like every honest man 
 and every ambitious man, desired to 
 accumulate something for old age, as 
 the result of it I had worked all these 
 years I had lived; that there ought 
 to be a time at some place and some- 
 where this continued digging and 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 871 
 
 probing and nagging into a man’s 
 private business should stop. It had 
 come to a place where I could not 
 get accommodation; nobody wanted 
 to do business with me, not because, 
 as the record shows I had ever beat 
 anybody out of a dollar, not that I 
 had ever failed to pay my honest 
 debts, but because the politicians 
 were after me, seeking by any means 
 fair or foul, to accomplish my de- 
 struction. It was impossible for me 
 to get financial aid. Thus being 
 tossed upon the waves of financial 
 distress being thrown upon the rocks 
 of failure, I appealed to my friends to 
 help me, and I had to tell them if 
 they would help me they would not 
 be subjected to the same criticism and 
 the same scrutiny and the same perse- 
 cution that other creditors of mine 
 had been. Under those conditions 
 they loaned me the money. Now then 
 I am being asked to be impeached 
 because I won’t tell who I got that 
 money from under those circum- 
 stances. Is it possible that fair- 
 minded men have become devoid of 
 every obligation which common hon- 
 esty of one man demands must ex- 
 ist for the perpetuation of civiliza- 
 tion? Is it possible to satisfy some- 
 body’s political animosity that I must 
 be brushed aside and a word given 
 in confidence upon which a consider- 
 ation was received must be broken 
 and bring persecution to the men who 
 loaned the money and financial ruin 
 to the man who borrowed the money? 
 Well you may understand why Mr. 
 Harris had to admit, that “We are 
 not asking you to impeach the Gov- 
 ernor solely upon the $156,000 item.” 
 because he knows and must know 
 that no man ought to be impeached 
 except for a crime defined by law, 
 much less some suspicion. Now, lis- 
 ten. They have scraped the earth with 
 a fine tooth comb; they even thought 
 they had the money traced and they 
 brought people here to testify to the 
 wrappers on the money, that it was 
 in the Alamo National Bank; that 
 was their theory. You will remem- 
 ber in the papers where they said 
 they had found it over in the Alamo 
 National Bank. And yet the men 
 here, the record showed, were sub- 
 poenaed — officials of that bank — 
 and they went there and did not find 
 where any loan in such an amount 
 ha.d ever passed through their books 
 and the record is as silent as the 
 grave where that money came from, 
 
 the record is as silent as the grave 
 where it came from or who it came 
 from. And yet you are asked to im- 
 peach me because I won’t tell. Now, 
 listen. Don’t you know that the true 
 test of a public servant is that of 
 public service? — the matter of his 
 record by which he should be tried 
 as a public official? and if there is 
 nothing in his public record that 
 brings either an evidence of some 
 guilt or some crime or moral tur- 
 pitude you’ve got no right to go in- 
 to his private business. They say 
 that it was official misconduct. In 
 what respect? Was it because of 
 the prohibition question. If there 
 had been a scintilla of evidence of 
 some action of mine in reference to 
 the prohibition question, wouldn’t 
 they have proven it? Was it the oil 
 interests that somebody squints at? 
 Had my record on the oil legislation 
 been such as to arouse suspicion you 
 would have found it alleged in 
 these charges here. What have I 
 done in my official record? What 
 promise to the people have I made 
 that I have not fulfilled? What ob- 
 ligation resting upon me officially 
 have I failed to perform? And yet 
 because in my financial dilemma I 
 had to give my word to the people 
 who helped me in my time of finan- 
 cial distress, they admitting at the 
 same time it is not sufficient 
 ground for impeachment, they say it 
 ought to be joined with twenty 
 other charges fully as faulty and 
 I ought to be put out of office on 
 that ground. My friends, to serve 
 the people of Texas is a great dis- 
 tinction. To have the office of Gov- 
 ernor is a great distinction. But 
 for a man to be conscious that he 
 had betrayed his Irust, that he had 
 misled his friends, that he had 
 broken his word, would take away 
 from him every personal satisfac- 
 tion that he had ever received any 
 honor or been entitled to any honor, 
 and so upon this ground I refused 
 to testify, as I had a legal right to 
 do, and which the courts, if you 
 would put it in the courts, would 
 demonstrate that I had a legal 
 right to do, and you as fairminded 
 men ought to be^ liberal enough in 
 the absence of any proof to say that 
 you are not justified in convicting 
 me and finding me guilty upon a 
 mere matter of suspicion. Suspicion 
 about what? Is it any crime for 
 a man to borrow $156,000? Is 
 
872 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 there a man in this Senate, if he 
 needed the money for a purpose 
 and a man would tell him he would 
 loan him the money if he would not 
 tell ab'out it, that would not bor- 
 row the money under the same con- 
 ditions? Not a one of you. Let’s 
 be honest with each other. Remem- 
 ber the obligations of man to man. 
 You would have borrowed the 
 money. As Senator McNealus told 
 me the other day, “I know the rea- 
 son you would not tell where you 
 got the $156,000.” I said, “Why?” 
 He said, “Because you know it 
 would break up this Senate and 
 they would all be running down to 
 the same place to see if they could 
 get some of t.he same money.” 
 
 Senator McNealus: Mr. President 
 will the Governor please state wheth- 
 er that was said in a jocular manner? 
 
 Governor Ferguson: Yes, sir, but 
 many a truth is uttered in a joke, 
 but at the same time the Senator 
 has not denied the fact and I think 
 his failure to deny would be no ex- 
 emplification or disrespect to say un- 
 der the same condition if he needed 
 money he would borrow it from any-< 
 body that wanted to loan it to him. 
 
 Now, my friends, I have spoken at 
 length. They say I borrowed money? 
 up at the Temple State Bank. Yes, 
 
 I did. The directors were satisfied 
 with it. No man has been brought 
 here to say — representatives of the 
 Temple State Bank — that they were 
 dissatisfied with it. I said upon oath 
 that they were satisfied with it. Don’t 
 you know if there had been anything 
 wrong about it they would have had 
 all the people here in Bell County 
 to testify to that fact? The former 
 investigating committee in the spring 
 of this year, in passing upon the very 
 question of the over-line that they 
 talk about, said that “based upon the 
 good faith of the Governor and his 
 solvent condition to pay or repay it, 
 we do not think it is any ground for 
 impeachment.” Any difference in the 
 facts now than they were then? If 
 it was a crime then it is a crime 
 now; if it was not a crime then, it 
 is not a crime now. That is the 
 answer to that charge. If the di- 
 rectors were satisfied with it and the 
 money was repaid, so far as the crime 
 of impeachment is concerned, wheth- 
 er it was thirty per cent more than 
 the law allowed or fifty per cent 
 more. It might have involved a mat- 
 
 ter of impropriety, but as long as it 
 was paid and everybody was satisfied 
 and nobody has lost a dollar, then 
 you as fairminded men called to pass 
 upon the question of whether I have 
 done wrong — of course, I have done 
 wrong in many instances; you 
 have done wrong and I have 
 done wrong; it is impossible to stay 
 in the Governor’s office three weeks 
 and not do wrong in some way — 
 your fool friends will help you make 
 a mistake; your enemies will involv.e 
 you and make you make mistakes; 
 the ordinary fallacies of human judg- 
 ment will make you make mistakes; 
 but that is not the issue. Senators. 
 The issue is whether each and every 
 one of the charges here are of suffi- 
 cient gravity and coupled to that de- 
 gree that would justify the great and 
 enormous crime of impeachment? I 
 say they are not. It is not a ques- 
 tion of whether I did wrong or not, 
 but whether I have been guilty of an 
 impeachable wrong is the question 
 which you are called upon to decide. 
 If your conscience does not tell you 
 that I have been guilty of a wrong 
 to that degree, and you vote against 
 me, then you have not shown proper 
 respect for the oath which you took 
 to try me impartially. 
 
 Now, my friends, I must close. I 
 realize that I am going to be followed* 
 by the official speaker of the House 
 of Representatives and th© Board 
 of Managers. Somehow or other I 
 have never envied the private prose- 
 cutor. I could always harmonize in 
 my mind why it was that a man could 
 accept money to support his family 
 and while he was trying to help some 
 man out of trouble, to help some man 
 on his way, to extend some act of 
 kindness; but I never, whilst I do not 
 condemn it exactly, I just want to 
 say that I never could understand 
 and get the viewpoint of the man 
 who wanted to be always employed 
 to hurt somebody, to make trouble 
 for somebody, to criticize somebody, 
 to prosecute somebody, because it al- 
 ways leads to a man’s becoming a 
 persecutor. Prosecution is a twin, 
 brother to persecution, and posterity 
 never approved either one of them. 
 And so I realize now that the Gen- 
 eral is going to bitterly arraign me; 
 he is going to tell you what a bad 
 man I am, and every time he tells 
 you something I want you not to lose 
 sight of the fact that Mr. Harris, his 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 873 
 
 co-counsel, said that neither one of 
 these was sufficient ground for im- 
 ueacliment, but they had to take 
 them all together, and when he be- 
 gins to tell you how bad a man I 
 am and how I betrayed my trust 
 I want you to remember that I have 
 done a few things for the people of 
 Texas and I want you to remember 
 that I am not as bad a man as they 
 say I am. If I had been a man that 
 was avaricious, if I had wanted to 
 make two hundred and fifty or five 
 hundred dollars interest on some 
 money for forty-five or fifty ,days 
 how do you harmonize it with a man 
 who has worked hard all his life, 
 and who in his middle age desired 
 to do something for his country, de- 
 sired to do something for the masses 
 of the country, desired to do some- 
 thing for the boys and girls who went 
 to school in the country, desired to 
 do something for the tenant farmers 
 who had been heretofore unnoticed 
 by the people of the country, to do 
 something for the upbuilding of the 
 country, who took from his private 
 estate thirty-one thousand dollars, 
 not from any brewery, not from any 
 oil interests, if you please, but, as 
 the record shows, from my own bank 
 I took $31,000 from my own funds 
 and spent it legitimately in the cam- 
 paign, making my own platform and 
 policies. Does it seem reasonable, if 
 I had been that bad a man, that I 
 would have made that sacrifice? Thq 
 last campaign I spent thirty-four 
 hundred dollars. Then they say I 
 only done it for the purpose of mak- 
 ing four or five hundred dollars in- 
 terest on a deposit for a few months. 
 Does it look reasonable that a man 
 would do that? I have been in office 
 a little over two years. I have got 
 about $8000 salary out of the office. 
 When I get through paying my law- 
 yers in this case the salary will have 
 been wiped out. I have paid off the 
 chicken salad item and I have paid 
 for the labor at the Mansion; this 
 Legislature has not seen fit to allow 
 me for the labor at the Mansion — 
 a rule not enforced against any other 
 Governor of the State. Why, they 
 talk about my using the credit of the 
 State, with the State’s money to bor- 
 row money, and you lose sight of 
 the fact that Mr. Dunn of the Union 
 National Bank told you that when 
 I came into office the credit of the 
 penitentiary had gotten to where no- 
 
 body wanted to do business with it. 
 Because of my financial standing the 
 State used my credit to get a hun- 
 dred and twenty thousand dollars to 
 make a success of the penitentiary, 
 to put it on a cash basis, and if you 
 are going to measure it by the ques- 
 tion of cold blooded dollars and cents 
 the record is undisputed that I have 
 done as much for the credit of the 
 State as the State has done for my 
 credit. The result of it is, you write 
 this verdict of impeachment like the 
 passions of the hour demand that 
 you do, remember that a million dol- 
 lars is going* to be turned over to the 
 profit of the penitentiary system that 
 has been made under by manage- 
 ment. Don’t forget that in the pur- 
 chase of a farm I made $250,000 for 
 the State of Texas. You say that is 
 my idea about it. On the floor of 
 the Senate that purchase was ques- 
 tioned. • I made the statement that 
 they might get twelve prohibi- 
 tion bankers that live in the Panhan- 
 dle of Texas and let them go over to 
 see that farm and if it wasn’t worth 
 a hundred thousand dollars more 
 than the State paid for it. I would 
 resign from the office; on the other 
 hand, if it was proved that it was 
 worth that much money a statement 
 would be made, an admision would 
 be made, that a misrepresentation 
 had been made against the Governor 
 of this State. I bought a farm up 
 n North Texas; the State had pre- 
 viously paid $40 an acre for land ad- 
 joining it; I bought land, adjoining 
 that for $15 an acre, better land. 
 I am not reflecting on anybody, but 
 I am showing you the facts, and you 
 must admit that if I had been a bad 
 man, seeking to prostitute the priv- 
 ileges of my office for private gain, 
 I have had every opporutnity to make 
 not only three or four or five hun- 
 dred dollars interest on a little de- 
 posit, but I could have made a hun- 
 dred thousand dollars if I had been 
 the bad man they want to make me. 
 Is it possible, because I have done 
 something for the country schools 
 of this State, are you going to lose 
 sight of it all, are you going to lose 
 sight of everything that has been 
 done for the upbuilding of thi^ 
 State, for the educational interests 
 of this State, a man who spent thirty 
 thousand dollars to get the privilege 
 to do something for the country 
 schools of this State, where the sys- 
 
874 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 tem of education has received an 
 impetus like it has not had in thirty 
 years, when throughout the broad 
 land of Texas the facilities for edu- 
 cation to every boy and girl had 
 been extended, where they can go 
 without price and get an education? 
 Is it possible, where I took a stand 
 for the laboring classes of the 
 country, and I have been able to 
 declare my position about the labor- 
 ing classes of this State, is it pos- 
 sible you are going to forget all 
 that and impeach me on the same 
 little ground of whether I wanted 
 to steal $5600 or whether I wanted 
 to make the interest on a $250,000 
 deposit for forty-five days? Gen- 
 tlemen, you ought to take a broad 
 view of this matter. General Crane, 
 the Official Spanker, as the saying 
 is, is going to romp all over me. 
 1 understand what is coming. It 
 seems in the broad, unequal strife 
 of life, down the stream which I 
 am now sailing, there is a boat 
 named “The M. M. Crane,” upon 
 that boat nine or ten managers de- 
 manding that he earn his money. 
 When he begins to spank me and 
 tell you what a bad man I am, re- 
 member it is nothing personal to 
 him, but it is because the managers 
 tell him, “Now, Crane, you must 
 earn your money,” and when he 
 lets up for a little bit and breaks 
 out again, don’t think there is any- 
 thing personal about it, but be- 
 cause the managers are demanding 
 of him that he maintain his record 
 of Official Spanker, and when he 
 has done that to his heart’s content, 
 when he has said all the bitter 
 things against me which he is go- 
 ing to say, ask yourselves the ques- 
 tion whether after it is all said and 
 done, before High Heaven, con- 
 scious of your duty to yourselves, 
 has the Governor been guilty of any 
 wrong that would justify impeach- 
 ment? Lay aside the passions of 
 the hour, try me like you would 
 try anybody else, not any bias for 
 me or any prejudice against me, but 
 extending to me like has been ex- 
 tended to all men in all ages the 
 eternal laws of justice. I thank you. 
 
 Senator Page. Mr President, it 
 is now about 11:25 and I don’t 
 think Mr. Crane would like to begin 
 his argument before lunch. 
 
 Senator Bee: Mr. President? 
 
 The Chair: The Senator from 
 Bexar. 
 
 Senator Bee: I wish the Chair 
 would admonish the galleries then, 
 if we adjourn as a Court, we will 
 continue as a Senate, and they 
 must permit us to continue our de- 
 liberations quietly. 
 
 The Chair: The Chair will da 
 that as soon as this matter is dis- 
 posed of. 
 
 Senator Page: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: The Senator from 
 
 Bastrop. 
 
 Senator Page: If I might be 
 permitted to ask General Crane 
 if he prefers not to have his argu- 
 ment broken into. 
 
 General Crane: I would prefer 
 to adjourn. 
 
 Senator Page: I make the sug- 
 gestion in the light of General 
 Crane’s statement, that we rise un- 
 til 2 o'clock. 
 
 Senator Strickland: Mr. Presi- 
 dent. 
 
 The Chair: The Senator from 
 Anderson. 
 
 Senator Strickland: I would like 
 to amend that and make it 1:30. 
 
 The Chair: The Chair desires to 
 state this to those in the gallery, 
 the Senate will be in session as 
 soon as the Court rises, and if any 
 of you remain where you are we 
 want you to keep order. Those in 
 favor of the motion that the Court 
 rise until 1:30 this afternoon sig- 
 nify by saying aye, those opposed 
 no. The ayes have it. We will 
 rise to meet at 1:30 this afternoon. 
 
 Thereupon at 11:24J a. m., the 
 court recessed until 1:30 p. m. 
 
 In the Senate. 
 
 President Pro Tem. Dean in the 
 Chair at 11:25 o'clock a. m. 
 
 Recess. 
 
 At 11:30 o’clock a. m. Senator 
 Clark moved that the Senate recess, 
 until 1:30 o’clock today. 
 
 The motion prevailed. 
 
 After Recess. 
 
 ( Afternoon Session. ) 
 
 The Senate was called to order 
 by President Pro Tem. Dean at 1:30' 
 o’clock. 
 
*4 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 875- 
 
 In the Court. 
 
 Saturday, September 22, 1917. 
 
 Afternoon Session. 
 
 (Pursuant to the recess adjourn- 
 rived for the convening of the Court, 
 of Impeachment, reconvened at 1:30 
 o’clock p. m.) 
 
 The Chair: The time having ar- 
 rived for the convening of the Court, 
 the Court will come to order. Every- 
 body be seated. The Chair will say 
 for the benefit of those who may not 
 have been here this morning and 
 who are now in the Chamber and in 
 the galleries as our guests, that we 
 do not want any kind of demon- 
 stration, and any time during the 
 progress of the proceedings this 
 afternoon, we can not tolerate any 
 demonstration. I believe that all 
 you need to know now is to be re- 
 minded that that will be so much 
 out of order that the assistants of 
 the Sergeant at Arms are instructed 
 to put out of the gallery or out of 
 the Chamber any one offending in 
 that way. Let us have order, now. 
 
 General Crane: May it please the 
 Court, my voice being a little out of 
 order, I take this elevation so as to 
 make myself heard more easily (re- 
 ferring to the platform of the wit- 
 ness stand). 
 
 I congratulate the Court upon the 
 fact that this case is nearing the end, 
 and that soon the result will be 
 known and announced. It is an im- 
 portant proceeding, important in 
 many ways; important because it is 
 the first of its kind that we have 
 had in this State, and because it is 
 necessary for the State to announce 
 in this authoritative way the highest 
 court of impeachment f hat could be 
 convened in this State, and the only 
 one, what the policy of this State 
 will be in the future towards its 
 officers; that is to say, whether or 
 not its officials, from the highest to 
 the lowest, shall be governed by the 
 law, or whether or not they shali 
 have a discretion commensurate with 
 their imaginations. I am not going 
 to waste but little time in discussing 
 the kind of a case, as to whether 
 it is a civil or criminal, further than 
 to say that this Court settled that, as 
 1 understood, by ruling on the admis- 
 sion of the evidence early in the pro- 
 ceedings. No appeal having been 
 taken from that, I take it for granted 
 
 that the Court has determined that 
 so far as this case is concerned, that 
 it is not a criminal case, but that it 
 is one of its own kind — sui generis, 
 so to speak, neither civil nor crim- 
 inal. It certainly has none of the 
 essentials of a criminal case, in that 
 former jeopardy cannot be pleaded; 
 and besides that, all of the crimes in 
 Texas are divided into two classes, 
 felonies and misdemeanors; of the 
 felonies the district court is given ex- 
 clusive jurisdiction, and of the mis- 
 demeanors, the jurisdiction as to 
 them is divided between the district 
 court, the county court, and the jus- 
 tice’s court. Our Supreme Court, 
 speaking through Chief Justice 
 Gaines, in a very able opinion, point- 
 ed out those facts, and as a neces- 
 sary conclusion, that all criminal 
 cases must be tried in a different 
 way, and in the courts in which the 
 Constitution has placed that respon- 
 sibility. 
 
 It ought not to be necessary for 
 me to suggest to you that there is no* 
 personal feeling involved in this case. 
 The Board of Managers, for whom I 
 speak, and the House of Representa- 
 tives that meet at the other end of 
 the Capitol, have not been moved by 
 any personal feeling toward Governor 
 Ferguson, but they have moved sole- 
 ly by a sense of duty to their con- 
 stituents at home, because, after all, 
 in every government, State, munic- 
 ipal, or national, its ultimate purpose 
 is to protect the weak against the 
 strong, and to compel obedience to 
 the law by everyone, whether he be a 
 private citizen or an official. I need 
 not call your attention either to the 
 fact that it is not necessary for any- 
 one who is sought to be impeached 
 to be guilty of a statutory crime. I 
 do not go to the extent, nor do I 
 believe all of the authorities bear it 
 out, but yet they do nearly so, of 
 some of the distinguished New York 
 lawyers in the Sulzer trial, who said 
 that an impeachable offense was 
 whatever the Senate of the State 
 thought it to be, that they could 
 make a trial matter an impeachable 
 offense if they saw fit. I concur in 
 that opinion this far, that the Sen- 
 ate can make any offense or any mis- 
 conduct upon the part of an official 
 an impeachable offense if they be- 
 lieve that it disqualifies him or that 
 it impairs his usefulness as an offi- 
 cer, they can remove him; in other 
 
876 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 words, it is an exercise of the same 
 power that in later days has been 
 sought to be exercised by the recall, 
 it is simply an official recall of an 
 officer, an executive, who ceases to 
 obey the law and who does business 
 in an entirely different way. But in 
 this case we are not left to that sort 
 of conjecture, we are not left to that 
 sort of suggestion as a ground for 
 impeachment in this case, because I 
 will show you before I have gone 
 very far that Governor Ferguson has 
 not only disobeyed the law, but that 
 if his conduct is to be construed or 
 governed by the laws that govern 
 the conduct of the average citizen, 
 he can not avoid the consequences — • 
 or he can not avoid the conclusion 
 that he has violated the criminal, 
 statutes of this State. 
 
 Now, before I go further, too, allow 
 me to correct a statement made by his 
 counsel and himself as to admissions 
 of Mr. Harris in his opening argu- 
 ment, Mr. Harris did not admit, as I 
 understood him — and I have the lan- 
 guage here before me (referring to 
 Senate Journal) — that he ought not to 
 be impeached for any one of these 
 charges made against him, but because 
 of all of them. He made that admis- 
 sion only in reference to one, and that 
 was the Woodman charge; he said 
 that if that was the only one that he 
 would admit that probably he ought 
 not to be impeached, but he asked his 
 impeachment because we had proven 
 all of the twenty-one charges, and he 
 said, “I think either one of twenty 
 certainly would justify his impeach- 
 ment, even if there was nothing else 
 proven against him. Now, for ex- 
 ample, we find that when he came\ 
 into office he had scarcely warmed his, 
 official seat before there was turned 
 over to him $101,607.18 of the people’s 
 money — not his money, but belonging 
 to the entire people, for the purpose 
 of rebuilding the Canyon City Normal 
 School. That money should have been 
 deposited in the State Treasury, but 
 it was not. His predecessor, however, 
 
 I can say in his justification — or, 
 rather, his mitigation, if not in justi- 
 fication, he deposited that money in 
 banks in which the then Governor was 
 not interested and on which he re- 
 ceived interest, and took security for 
 every dollar, so as to insure the State 
 against any loss and make the money 
 earn interest in the meantime. Gov- 
 ernor Ferguson took that money when 
 
 it was put into his hands and put at 
 least half of it, $50,000 of it in his 
 bank, at Temple — not all, at any rate, 
 but that much ultimately found its 
 way there as the money was collected. 
 That bank, remember, had not made 
 one penny of dividends, hasn’t made 
 any in the past two years, as he has 
 testified. He says that that money 
 was not intended to be loaned out, to 
 profit him, and he exhibits a letter ac- 
 companying his remittance, that no 
 loan was to be based upon that de- 
 posit. But, I take it, that he cannot 
 be and could not be, and was not 
 ignorant of the fact that that money 
 was loaned out, because the statements 
 of the bank, and his bank examiners, 
 appointed by his appointee, showed 
 that while that money was in the bank 
 the reserve was always less than the 
 fund that Governor Ferguson had 
 placed there. Now, think of it! He 
 took $50,000 of the State’s money and 
 put it into the bank, and the reserve 
 Or cash surplus of that bank during 
 me time that that money was in it, 
 was less than the amount of the State’s 
 money which Governor Ferguson had 
 deposited there. Now. if that money 
 had not been there, that reserve would 
 have had to have been taken out of. 
 some other funds; he cannot escape 
 the conclusion, and he ought in all 
 frankness to admit it, that the deposit 
 of that $50,000 in the Temple Bank 
 was advantageous to him, was ad- 
 vantageous to the other stockholders, 
 and he ought not to escape the con- 
 clusion either that it was deposited 
 there for the purpose of being profit- 
 able to that bank. But then comes 
 another question; after that money 
 had been there for some time, on the 
 ^23d day of August, 1915, $5600 of that 
 money was appropriated to pay his 
 private, personal debt of $5600 due to 
 the First National Bank of Temple. 
 That was on the 23d day of August, 
 1915. On the first or second, or third 
 of September of the same year, a state- 
 ment was sent to him, containing the 
 three other items of money that had 
 been remitted to the American Na- 
 tional Bank, and also containing this 
 item of $5600, with a voucher, plainly 
 written, stating $5,000 on the note to 
 the First National Bank of Temple, 
 $600 in the next line, interest, making 
 a total of $5600, and with a further 
 notation in ink, “Note sent to Aus- 
 tin.” Now, his Private Secretary sit- 
 ting here on this witness stand stated 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 877 
 
 that he never read that report. We 
 are obliged, Senators, to examine this 
 testimony in the light of the ordi- 
 nary understanding of men, and the 
 ordinary habits of men. A man sends 
 and gets a bank statement with only 
 four items in it. it is a statement 
 affecting a trust fund for the use of 
 which he, at least, has assumed, or is 
 clothed with the power of disbursing; 
 he gets that statement, and to say that 
 he never looks into it, challenges the 
 credulty of any man — never examines 
 the four items to see whether or not 
 they are proper charges against that 
 trust fund, never looks to see whether 
 the money has been properly applied, 
 01 whether it has been applied to the 
 wrong account. If that be true, then, 
 Governor Ferguson ought to be re- 
 moved from office, because he is unfit 
 to act as trustees in such large matters, 
 if he can let $5600 of trust funds slip 
 into his other trousers’ pocket with- 
 out ever ascertaining the fact until 
 the grand jury points it out. Now, 
 that is not all. In the following April 
 — the following April, Governor Fergu- 
 son wrote a letter to the same bank 
 to send him a statement of his guber- 
 natorial account. That statement 
 came, and yet it was not discovered 
 that $5600 of the people’s money had 
 been applied to the payment of the 
 Governor’s debt. And yet, now, Sena- 
 tors, there is another suggestion; 
 in that same April, that same 
 month of April, the 27th day, 
 he had to pay for the Canyon 
 City Normal, the last payments on 
 it. He knew the amount of money 
 he had on hand to make that pay- 
 ment was $101,607.18. He had all 
 of that at Temple transwerred to 
 the American National Bank, he 
 knew it was brought down here. In 
 the meantime, he had deposited 
 money of the Adjutant General’s 
 office, something over $3,000.00, he 
 had deposited some of the King’s 
 Highway funds, or other trust funds 
 committed to his care in the same 
 account, and when he made his last 
 payment on the Canyon City Nor- 
 mal, it ought to have been the last 
 of $101,000.00, he overdrew that 
 account of about $108,000.00, he 
 overdrew it $1847.50. Now, Sen- 
 ators, let me ask of you, is it pos- 
 sible for a Senator here, charged 
 with the administration of a trust 
 fund, to have in his hands $101,- 
 607.18, and when he goes to pay out 
 
 that trust fund he knows that he 
 has. not only paid out what there is 
 left of that, but he has paid out 
 nearly $4,000.00 of additional 
 funds, and he has made an over- 
 draft of $1800.00, or, rather — yes, 
 an. overdraft of $1847.50, and, yet, 
 never discover any of that trust 
 fund had been misapplied. I would 
 like to believe, Senators, that he 
 did not know. But he was called 
 upon then to make a deposit to 
 cover that amount. He deposited 
 $1850.00 out of his personal funds 
 to cover the deficiency. Why should 
 he have been depositing his per- 
 sonal funds to cover a deficiency in 
 the trust funds, if he did not know 
 that some of those trust funds had 
 been improperly used? Then, you 
 will recall that while the witness 
 was on the stand, I asked him to 
 take the amount of the overdraft, 
 $1847.50, the amount of the Adju- 
 tant General’s fund, the amount of 
 the King’s Highway fund, and add 
 them together, and see what they 
 made. He added them and they 
 made the fateful sum of $5600.00, 
 the precise amount that had been 
 abstracted by the Temple State 
 Bank and applied to the payment 
 of the Governor’s debt. And, yet, 
 Senators, he never discovered that 
 loss, ,he tells you, never discov- 
 ered it until on the 20th day of 
 July, 1917, more than a year — 
 nearly two years, after the loss had 
 occurred, and then it was pointed 
 to him — the Governor of this great 
 imperial State — it was pointed to 
 him by the Grand Jury of Travis 
 County! My God! When has it be- 
 come necessary, since when, for the 
 Governor of the State to have a 
 grand jury of a county point out 
 to him a breach of trust of which 
 he has been guilty? It is humiliat- 
 ing to every man of us here that any 
 man clothed with the power of exe- 
 cuting a trust, entrusted with cash 
 that does not belong to him, but 
 to others, to let that cash escape 
 from his fingers and never discover 
 it until a grand jury calls on him 
 to account! Now, I appeal to you 
 lawyers here — and I see you sitting 
 around me, many of you who handle 
 all kinds of cases and all kinds of 
 trust funds — there is not one of you 
 here this afternoon who would be 
 entrusted with $100,000.00 to thus 
 distribute, that it would be possible 
 to get $5600.00 out of your hands 
 
878 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 without your discovering that 
 fact? I think you ought to give to 
 the Governor what he claims — that 
 he is a man at least of ordinary in- 
 telligence and ordinary capacity, 
 and I take it you will reach the 
 conclusion that it could not have 
 escaped him either, without his 
 knowledge, even his consent. 
 
 I am not going to discuss all of 
 these charges, the time is too short 
 and I do not intend to consume all 
 that is alloted to me; but there are 
 some of them to which I do wish to 
 call your attention. 
 
 When he came down here to Aus- 
 tin, he tells you, and all of the of- 
 ficers that who have testified, it had 
 grown up to be a habit here to 
 do — what? To make their collec- 
 tions of checks that were sent them 
 paying the official fees or charges, 
 the government collections, take 
 those checks, deposit them in a 
 bank for collection, and make set- 
 tlement with the Treasury every 
 thirty days; that had grown to be 
 a custom. But when he came here, 
 what happened? A conference of 
 some kind was immediately held 
 between the Banking Commissioner 
 and himself — or, at least, that was 
 the result of it — and then between 
 himself and the Secretary of State, 
 in which it was understood that the 
 public funds of all kinds and char- 
 acters that were collected by those 
 officers, settlements for that should 
 not be made except at the end of 
 a ninety-day period. And then, for 
 the first time in the history of this 
 State, the money of the people of 
 Texas, your money and my money, 
 the money that the taxpayers had 
 paid in, or, at least, it belonged to 
 the taxpayers, — that was deposited 
 under the direction and with the 
 consent of the Governor of this 
 great State where it would bring a 
 revenue to the bank in which he 
 was a stockholder! As I look at 
 this magnificent audience before me 
 now, as I look at this tribunal, the 
 Senate of Texas, representing the 
 best thought and feeling and tradi- 
 tions of this great people, I cannot 
 but reflect back and wonder what 
 would have been thought of old 
 Richard Coke, or old\ Governor 1 
 Roberts — the “Old Alcalde” — and 
 John Ireland, the chivalrous Sul 
 Ross, if it had been found or be- 
 lieved that they were acting, or 
 either of them, as a collecting agent 
 
 for a bank in which they happened 
 to own stock, or of using the ppb- 
 lic funds by deposting them where 
 they would bring a revenue to them. 
 No. no. If that had been true and 
 it had been discovered, the names 
 of those gentlemen whom I have 
 mentioned . would not be honored 
 now throughout the confines of 
 this great State as unselfish, pub- 
 lic servants. But they say, ' was 
 that prohibited by law? I answer, 
 “Yes.” 
 
 Listen, Senators- — but let us look 
 at the extent of it before we read 
 the law. It was not an occasional 
 deposit, it was a deposit running all 
 the years, and, mark you, the sub- 
 terfuge, the little excuses made for 
 it — why, they had a witness on the 
 stand here from the Secretary of 
 State’s office who had sent $5,000.- 
 00 to the Temple State Bank, and it 
 stayed there eleven months, and it 
 is there yet, re-enforced by $10,- 
 000.00 more. “Why,” they said, 
 “that $5,000.00 were overcharges 
 where somebody in paying fran- 
 chise taxes paid fifty cents too 
 much, and we are unable to refund 
 it to him, and it is that $5,000.00 
 that was sent up to Temple.” Well, 
 now, that is not true, and they aft- 
 erwards admitted it. What they did 
 have in the vaults of the Treasury, 
 or in the bank, was $250,000.00, 
 t sopie of which, of course, were 
 fhose little itemte, and they took 
 tthe $5,000.00 and sent it to Temple. 
 At is $5,000.00 of the people’s 
 money. A little bit later they put 
 $60,000.00 — the Governor took it 
 in his pocket up there and deposted 
 it in that bank, — not for collection, 
 but it was cash. A little bit later 
 they took $250,000.00, took that 
 to Temple and deposited, n it in that 
 bank; and at one time they had in 
 that bank $354,000.00 of money be- 
 longing to the Secretary of State — 
 that is, in his hands, that he ought 
 to have turned in to the State 
 Treasury, but instead of that he 
 turned it into the Governor’s bank. 
 iHow is that money secured? You 
 gentlemen know the law. A Secre- 
 tary of State gives a bond for $25,- 
 000.00, and for that bond of $25,- 
 000.00 he takes $354,000.00 away 
 from the Capital into a distant 
 county and deposits it in a bank 
 wrich has been unable to earn a 
 dividend for two years — no security, 
 no nothing. 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 879 
 
 Now, then, let’s see what the law 
 was, and the Governor said he knew 
 what it was. It says (reading from 
 statute) : 
 
 “That if any officer of the govern- 
 ment who is by law a receiver or 
 depositary of public money, or any 
 clerk or other person employed about 
 
 J the office of such officer, shall fraud- 
 ulently take or misapply or convert 
 it to his own use, any part of such 
 public money, or secrete the same 
 with intent to take, misapply, or 
 convert it to his own use, or shall 
 take or deliver the same to any per- 
 son, knowing that he is not entitled 
 to receive it, he shall be punished 
 by confinement in the penitentiary 
 for a term of not less than two nor 
 more than ten years.” 
 
 Now, that was the law of 1858. 
 In 18 7 9, twenty-one years later, they 
 amended it as follows: 
 
 “Within the term ‘misapplication 
 of public money,’ are included the 
 following: The use of any public 
 
 \.< money in the hands of any officer of 
 the government, for any purpose 
 whatsoever, save that of transmit- 
 ting or transporting the same to the 
 seat of government, and its payment 
 to the Treasurer.” 
 
 Could any man misunderstand that 
 language? There is not a layman 
 here who does not know what it 
 means. By misapplication of public 
 funds it meant what? “Any use 
 whatsoever of that money, save that 
 of transmitting it into the State 
 Treasury.” But that is not all, 
 here is another: 
 
 “The deposit by any officer of the 
 government of public money in his 
 hands, at any other place than the 
 Treasury of the State, when the 
 Treasury is accessible and open for 
 business, or permitting the same to 
 remain on d^dsit at such forbidden 
 place after the Treasury is open.” 
 
 Now, that is one of the things that 
 the government sought to compel — to 
 compel the officers who got possession 
 of public money in the State to de- 
 posit it in the State Treasury, and 1 
 say now that it would be misapplica- 
 tion of that fund if he used it for any 
 purpose, or if you deposited that 
 money elsewhere, provided the State 
 Treasury is open for the reception of 
 that money and the transaction of 
 business. 
 
 I dislike to say this, Senators, I 
 would like to say it otherwise — but 
 how Governor Ferguson and his Sec- 
 
 retary of State can escape the proposi- 
 tion that they have violated this crim- 
 inal statute, I cannot understand. 
 Did they use, I ask you, did they use 
 this public money in the hands of an 
 officer of the government for any pur- 
 pose whatsoever except of transmit- 
 ting it or transporting it to the seat 
 of government? I will ask you to 
 answer, did they deposit this money 
 that was in their hands at any other 
 place than the Treasury of the State, 
 when the Treasury is accessible and 
 open for business, or permit the same 
 to remain on deposit at such forbidden 
 place after the Treasury is open? I 
 leave you to answer that, Senators. 
 If you can say in the face of this 
 record that that is true, that he never 
 deposited the public funds except in 
 the Treasury of the State when it was 
 open. I know you can’t say that, be- 
 cause the evidence is all the other 
 way — the admissions of the Governor 
 are all the other way. Now, how does 
 he meet that situation? He says that 
 it must be deposited with “a fraudu- 
 lent intent.” I say no. Senators, 
 you lawyers, you must say no. That 
 statute does not say that the deposit 
 of money with “fraudulent intent.” 
 No. But the deposit of it anywhere 
 except in the Treasury. Now, you 
 will remember the banking statute — 
 the Governor admits that part of it, 
 that if . the president of a bank, or an 
 officer of a State bank, shall borrow 
 money without the consent of his di- 
 rectors, that that is of itself a felony 
 Ver se. No fraudulent intent there 
 necessary, it is simply a statutory 
 crime' for the protection of the best 
 interests of the State. And this is a 
 statutory crime to prevent just such 
 conditions as have grown up here 
 within this State within the last two 
 years. 
 
 Here is a pitiful circumstance con- 
 nected with this matter — during the, 
 period that this money was being de- 
 posited at Temple and elsewhere, a 
 deficiency arose in the Treasury, and 
 the poor wretches to whom the State 
 was indebted — some of them poor and 
 some of them otherwise — were obliged 
 to either discount their warrants or 
 await calls made for them later.” 
 Why? Because the money was not in 
 the Treasury to make these payments! 
 The money was deposited in private 
 banks here and there, and everywhere, 
 to suit the convenience of the official 
 
880 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 family, instead of in obedience to the 
 law, depositing it where it ought to be. 
 
 If there is any Senator here who 
 is doubtful about an impeachment 
 proceeding except for a statutory 
 crime, he may remove his doubts. A 
 statutory crime has been committed 
 over and over again. The Governor 
 himself carried a part of the money 
 to Temple, he was present, and, as 
 his testimony shows, and his declara-\ 
 tions show, introduced into this rec- 
 ord, he encouraged the Secretary of< 
 State to do the same, telling him that 
 the larger he made the deposit, the 
 better it would please him. Now, that 
 still is not all. The State of Texas 
 passed a banking law establishing a 
 comprehensive system of State banks. 
 It was more liberal in some of Us 
 provisions, very much so, than the 
 National Banking Act. The Federal 
 government, in establishing its bank- 
 ing system, provides that no bank shall 
 lend more than ten per cent of its 
 \ capital to any one man — capital and 
 ‘ surplus. This State law provided no 
 bank should lend, under any circum- 
 stances, more than thirty per cent of 
 its money to any one man — of its cap- 
 ital and surplus. The Governor 
 owned a one-fourth interest, or a little 
 more, in the Temple State Bank. 
 When he left there and came down 
 to Austin, he owed it about $12,000. 
 The deposits of the State’s money be- 
 gan to increase in that direction — or, 
 rather, began and were increased, and 
 the Governor’s credit line was imme- 
 diately increased. It grew and grew, 
 until his overdrafts at some periods 
 amounted to $44,000 or $45,000 more 
 than the statutory amount, and was 
 finally increased with notes and all 
 to practically $170,000. Now, remem- 
 ber, that bank had $125,000 capital, it 
 had a colorable surplus of $25,000 or 
 $30,000, but it was carrying dead notes 
 that were said to be worthless, and 
 that the bank examiners were insist- 
 ing should be charged off, of about 
 $40,000. So, you see, the surplus was 
 practically exhausted. It carried its 
 bank building at $25,000, — at $100,000 
 — so that the only capital stock avail- 
 able to that bank for business pur- 
 poses was $25,000 cash. The money 
 upon which they must do business, 
 then, must come from the deposits, 
 and of theSe deposits, when they came < 
 in, the Governor procured to be loaned 
 to him, $170,000. Now, let me read 
 
 5 you that law — there is another crim- 
 . inal statute (reading): 
 
 ) “Any officer, director, or employe of 
 t any State bank or trust company who 
 j knowingly or wilfully fails or refuses 
 L to perform any duties imposed on him 
 J by law, or who shall do, perform, or 
 „ assist in doing or performing any act 
 ' or transaction prohibited, by the pro- 
 visions of this law, for the punish- 
 5 ment of which provision is not other- 
 -\ wise made, shall be deemed guilty of 
 - \ a misdemeanor, and upon conviction 
 ['^thereof, shall be punished by a fine 
 : of not less than $500 or more than 
 i $1,000, or by imprisonment in fthe 
 : county jail for a term of not less than 
 
 > thirty days nor more than ninety days, 
 
 • or by both such fine and impris.on- 
 . ment.” 
 
 > Now, when the Governor procured 
 : — or the president or cashier of that 
 
 bank lent him money in excess of 
 ■ thirty per cent of the capital stock, 
 what was he doing? He was induc- 
 1 ing them to commit a crime, for 
 which each one of them could be 
 fined $500 — not less than $5 00, nor 
 more than $1000, or be committed 
 : to the county jail for thirty days, or 
 ninety days, or by both such fine and 
 imprisonment. You know now what 
 that means. He who procures the 
 commission of a crime for his own 
 benefit is the criminal himself, and 
 Governor Ferguson and the cashier 
 and the president of that bank, if 
 the law had been enforced in Bell 
 County, would all have been indicted 
 and convicted under the statute for 
 violating the Texas law. Now, that 
 sounds harsh, but I am only dealing 
 in the piain words of the record. It 
 is not any pleasure for me to con- 
 template a man filling the high of- 
 fice of Governor, who holds his hand 
 up before High Heaven and in the 
 presence of the assembled multitude 
 swears that he will enforce all the 
 laws of the State — it is no pleasure 
 to me to call attention to the fact 
 that he openly and notoriously vio- 
 lated them and that for his own 
 profit. It is as much the duty of 
 Governor Ferguson to enforce the 
 banking laws of this State as it is 
 to enforce the laws against murder; 
 it is as much his duty to enforce the 
 banking laws of the State as it is 
 to enforce the laws against railroads 
 or other corporations; it is as much 
 his duty to enforce the laws against 
 the borrower as it is the laws against 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 881 
 
 the lender. But how does he evade 
 that? He says that the law is dU. 
 rectory and that when the law comes 
 in conflict with business necessities 
 the law must yield. That is about 
 his idea — when the law comes in con- 
 flict with business necessities the law 
 must give way. I leave this Senate 
 to determine whether or not it will 
 say — whether it will say that the 
 Governor of this State, sworn to en- 
 force the law, can shamelessly vio- 
 late it. Remember, we have no priv- 
 ileged classes in this country. The 
 man who happens to be elected to a 
 high office does not thereby become 
 a chartered libertine. That man is 
 as much amenable to the law as the 
 humblest citizen in the land, and I 
 thought at the time that Governor Fer- 
 guson in attempting to array the Uni- 
 versity and the common schools 
 against each other and appealing to 
 the man at the forks of the creek, 
 the hard-handed laborer and the 
 hard-working farmer — -that if those 
 people knew his attitude, that they 
 must obey the law but so far as the 
 Governor is concerned he is King 
 and the King can do no wrong. That 
 is a nice theory to get up in Texas. 
 Why, he said a rich man could bor- 
 row every dollar of the money in a 
 bank, just so long as the loan is safe. 
 Now, Senators, I need not remind 
 you of the purpose of this law. The 
 purpose of the banking laws of this 
 State was to. gather together the re- 
 sources of each community in which 
 the bank was established by having 
 the money deposited therein. It was 
 a fund available to every honest man 
 who wanted to carry on a business 
 and carry on the various enterprises 
 necessary for the happiness and well- 
 being of that community. It sought 
 to prevent the very thing that Gov- 
 ernor Ferguson has insisted upon — 
 that is, borrowing all that money by 
 one man. Why, if Governor Fergu- 
 son’s theory could prevail, Major Lit- 
 tlefield in this city could borrow all 
 the available funds of every State 
 bank in Austin and in Travis County; 
 he could borrow every dollar of them 
 and make them secure. But what 
 good would the banks be then?. 
 Major Littlefield could use those 
 banks to corral the resources of the 
 community and become the master 
 thereof. In Dallas, the city where I 
 live, I can get a dozen men there 
 and name them who could borrow 
 
 every dollar in every State and Na- 
 tional bank in that city that is avail- 
 able for lending. But why — why can 
 they not do it? The Federal Govern- 
 ment, over which floats the stars and 
 stripes, says no one man can do that; 
 you can borrow only a small percen- 
 tage of the capital stock and surplus 
 of that bank; the rest of it must be 
 left available for the other people 
 in the community. The State, in the 
 same way, but with more liberality, 
 announces you can only borrow thirty 
 per cent. Governor Ferguson says 
 the law must get out of the way, I 
 need that money, I can make it se- 
 cure and then that’s all — and did he 
 have it secure? Now, let’s examine 
 that for a moment. He said in his 
 testimony a little later on that he 
 was threatened with bankruptcy at a 
 certain time. Do you recall? He 
 said that it was after the investiga- 
 tion, but now he will have to modify 
 that statement. Why? Because this 
 threat of bankruptcy came to him 
 when he was owing the Temple State 
 Bank $150,000. Certainly, there was 
 *150,000 that he owed that bank, 
 four notes, all of which were guar- 
 anteed by him. Bankruptcy was 
 threatening him then. Then it was 
 that his friends came in and made 
 him that loan of currency about 
 which so much has been said. Sup- 
 pose that bankrutpcy had come on 
 him; suppose that that unfortunate 
 condition had materialized at that 
 time. What w r ould have become of 
 the Temple bank, and what would 
 have become of the honest depositors 
 whose cash was therein placed? It 
 would have been a wreck — it would 
 have been a wreck — wrecked not by, 
 the rascality of the officers, but' 
 wrecked by the disregard of the Gov- 
 ernor of the State for the laws un- 
 der which that bank was organized. 
 Why, the Governor’s idea of en- 
 forcement of the law, I want to get 
 it to his country friends — he says, 
 for instance, that Major Littlefield 
 could go in his bank, contrary to law, 
 and take out a half million of money 
 if necessary and go to Europe with it 
 and come back and replace it; thalj 
 the fact that the Major was able to 
 replace it would make it not a crime; 
 but if a poor stenographer or teller 
 or clerk were to take out one thou- 
 sand dollars, believing that he would 
 be able to replace it, but if some mis- 
 fortune befell him and he could not, 
 
882 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 he would be a criminal and a felon. 
 The Governor has not learned the 
 first principles of democracy or Am- 
 ericanism. He ought to know that 
 the laws of this land operate on the 
 rich and the poor alike. The law 
 does not define a crime for a 
 poor man and leave the rich man 
 innocent for doing the same act. It 
 is the act that constitutes the crime. 
 There never has been a bank 
 wrecked in all this country, there 
 never has been a misapplication of 
 public funds in all this country, 
 that in its incipieney the man be- 
 ginning to take the money did not 
 intend to replace it. Take the de- 
 faulting cashiers, the defaulting 
 tellers, the refaulting presidents; 
 that has always been true; they 
 first take the money intending to 
 replace it, but finally, finding they 
 could not, they then went to pieces 
 hence the government has fixed 
 this law so that it makes it a crime 
 per se for a man to take the funds 
 of a bank of which he is trustee or 
 officer or use them contrary to the 
 letter and spirit of the statute un- 
 der which it is organized. The Gov- 
 ernor is unhappy in his construc- 
 tion of law. He perverts the plain- 
 est principles. Now, let me read 
 a section of the Constitution, and I 
 believe that every lady and every 
 man in this audience even would not 
 misapprehend it; I know that no 
 Senator would. It talks about the 
 Governor’s salary. “He shall at 
 stated timesi receive as compensa- 
 tion fbr his services an annual sal- 
 ary of four thousand dollars and 
 no more, and shall have the use and 
 occupancy of the Governor’s man- 
 sion, fixtures and furniture.” Now, 
 there is not a Senator within the' 
 sound of my voice who does not 
 know that that provision of the 
 Constitution meant that he should 
 get a salary of four thousand dol- 
 lars and should have the use of the 
 furniture and fixtures in the Man- 
 sion and the Mansion itself — no 
 more, not a penny more. And yet 
 Governor Ferguson had appropriat- 
 ed money for fuel, ice, light, water 
 and incidentals, and then proceed- 
 ing to spend the entire appropria- 
 tion for incidentals, and I could 
 scarcely credit my senses when I 
 found out that by “incidentals” he 
 meant family groceries, chickens, 
 butter, eggs, beef, lard, automobile 
 
 supplies, horse feed, and all that — 
 vegetables, in fact almost the en- 
 tire living expenses except clothing. 
 Those were classed as incidentals. 
 In the face of that — now, it would 
 not have looked so bad — in the face, 
 however, of this fact, that during 
 the previous administration an ap- 
 propriation had been made for gro- 
 ceries, but his Legislture refused to 
 put “groceries” in it and gave him 
 “incidentals.” Then, when the case 
 of Middleton against Terrell was 
 begun t.he Attorney General was 
 asked to take charge of the defense, 
 maintaining the proposition that 
 this appropriation for groceries was 
 right and proper and constitutional. 
 He declined to do so, advising Gov- 
 ernor Ferguson that the Legislature 
 had no right to make that appropri- 
 ation. Well, he knew more law 
 than the Attorney General. They 
 got into the District Court. The 
 District Judge advised him in the 
 same way. He still would not take 
 the District Judge’s opinion. They 
 then went to San Antonio, to the 
 Court of Civil Appeals there, and 
 there in an opinion which no man 
 can answer it was pointed out that 
 the framers of this Constitution in- 
 tended no such absurdity, and that 
 if they could know what was done 
 in their name theyj would almost 
 turn over in their graves. Yet Gov- 
 ernor Ferguson proceeded to buy 
 incidentals, interpreting those in- 
 cidentals as groceries— ^all the eat- 
 ables you can think of — charging 
 them to the State and paying for 
 them out of the State Treasury as 
 long as the appropriation lasted and 
 then issuing deficiency certificates 
 thereafter. Later the case came up 
 to the Supreme Court. The Supreme 
 [Court refused a writ of error, and 
 still in a message to the Legislature 
 he asks them to make an appropria- 
 tion covering the deficiency war- 
 rants which he had created for his 
 family expenses. Senators, the 
 trouble with the Governor is that he 
 has an utter disregard for the law, 
 The fact that it is a constitutional 
 provision, a decision of the Supreme 
 Court, or a statute, makes no im 
 pression on him. He will not obey 
 it whenever it goes contrary to what 
 he thinks ought to be the law. That 
 is the first thing that the lawyer 
 learns. He learns that many times 
 he is obliged to submit when he 
 thinks that on principle the de- 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 883 
 
 cision is wrong, and later on per- 
 haps he reaches the conclusion that 
 the decision itself was right. Now, 
 there was an examination then, a 
 committee met over here in March, 
 and t.he Governor appeared before 
 it. His attention was called to 
 this particular provision that I am 
 discussing, and he then and there 
 promised under oath — I have got it 
 here in the Journal — that if the Su- 
 preme Court overruled the motion 
 for rehearing he would immediate- 
 ly pay back into the Treasury all 
 the money that he had taken out for 
 that purpose. There can’t be any 
 mistake about what he said. But 
 the Supreme Court overruled the 
 motion for rehearing. He did not 
 pay the money back into the Treas- 
 ury, and he came over into the 
 House and solemnly stated in the 
 presence of that House Committee 
 of the Whole that he would not pay 
 it back unless the Legislature re- 
 quested it. I called his attention to 
 the fact and asked him if he did not 
 think that it was the proper thing 
 for the Executive of the State to 
 obey the law as ‘interpreted by the 
 Supreme Court and not ask to have 
 a decision of the Supreme Court re- 
 inforced by a resolution of the Leg- 
 islature. Until these articles of im- 
 peachment were preferred he did, 
 not pay it back. Since the he has. 
 
 Now, I come to another point, 
 and I am hurrying. The Governor 
 has. made a violent attack upon the 
 University of this State. Now, don’t 
 let any of you misapprehend our po- 
 sition in reference to that. Nobody 
 denies the right of the Governor 
 to veto an appropriation for any in- 
 stitution that he thinks is wrong. 
 But now f want you all to remember 
 another fact: That he can veto any 
 part of an appropriation and leave 
 the rest there. But he practically 
 vetoed all the appropriation for the 
 University, letting the Legislature 
 adjourn- — let it go. It would have 
 been precisely like if he had vetoed 
 all the appropriation for the judi- 
 cial system of Texas without having 
 in mind calling another session and 
 leaving the machinery of the law 
 entriely powerless to execute itself; 
 it is the same thing in principle, 
 though perhaps not quite so disas- 
 trous in result. The University is 
 the creature of the Constitution. It 
 was the dream of the fathers, it was 
 the result of the prayers of the moth- 
 
 ers, in order that their children in 
 Texas might have an opportunity 
 for higher education. It was es- 
 tablished and it has been conducted 
 now for more than thirty years and 
 with signal success. It had two 
 methods of support; one was a per- 
 manent fund which was sought to be 
 created, and the other was taxation. 
 It was hoped that the permanent 
 fund would be sufficient, because the 
 fathers made wise provision for its 
 maintenance by a permanent fund, 
 but they didn’t make quite enough. 
 The Governor did not issue that veto 
 message for the proper reasons, or 
 based upon proper causes; he issued 
 it because of his personal grievances 
 against members of the faculty. > 
 Think of the Governor of a great 
 State, think of him because he falls 
 out with some members of the faculty 
 of the University denying to the 
 young men and women of Texas an 
 opportunity for an education because 
 he can’t have his way about some 
 trifling circumstance like that. He 
 had a Board of Regents composed 
 of most excellent men; he had Mr. 
 Sanger of Dallas, Major Littlefield 
 of this place, and many others of 
 equal rank and station, all of whom 
 were patriots serving at a loss to 
 themselves and with no interest to 
 subserve except that of the good of 
 the people of Texas. Governor Fer- 
 guson made as a pretext, as I be- 
 lieve, his statement that they were 
 using scrip out there for which they 
 paid twenty-five dollars and cashing 
 it for thirty — railroad traveling 
 scrip. But, Governor Ferguson did 
 you make any objection to the heads 
 of your departments doing the same 
 thing? No. Didn’t you and the 
 Comptroller talk that matter over at 
 the time and didn’t you get a letter 
 from him? I believe we did. Didn’t 
 Mr. Davis tell you a short time ago 
 that the practice was in vogue in 
 his department? Yes. Did you ever 
 examine into those things at all with 
 a view of correcting them? No. But 
 he called it up in the University. Dr. 
 Vinson immediately corrected it. 
 Then there was some little expense 
 account out there of one of the pro- 
 fessors taking his wife to Fort Worth 
 in order to save an expense of five 
 times as much to bring a man from 
 Pennsylvania. That was held up as 
 an evidence of moral obliquity. Well, 
 he said the trouble about that was 
 that the entry was not as it should 
 
884 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 have been, that they undertook to 
 substitute something. All right, Gov- 
 ernor. Didn’t you make some entries 
 of somekind? In 1915 when this 
 chicken salad case was pending at 
 San Antonio, didn’t you make a con- 
 tract with Mr. Achilles, and didn’t 
 you procure a warrant to be issued 
 by the Comptroller for $1796 for in- 
 cidentals, and were you not pre- 
 vented from getting that money out 
 of the Treasury for those inciden- 
 tals by the obstinacy of the Treas- 
 urer of this State? Well, yes. Now. 
 what was that? I know there is not 
 a married man here who believes 
 that grocery bills are incidentals. 
 Yet the Governor was quite willing 
 to take $1796 out of the Treasury 
 of the State as incidentals, and yet 
 fall out with Professor James or 
 Dr. Battle for paying twenty dol- 
 lars expenses of a good woman to 
 Fort Worth to save an expense ac- 
 count in the University. Well, 
 finally, the thing that sounded ridi- 
 culous, it was given out in the pa- 
 pers that Governor Ferguson had 
 called the Regents down to Austin 
 for the purpose of discussing with 
 them changes in the faculty of the 
 University. What were the changes 
 proposed? Dr. Vinson nad to go. 
 Dr. Vinson was very much beloved 
 by the faculty and by the student 
 body, and rightly so. Those profes- 
 sors had to go, too. Some of them 
 Have been there for twenty-five years 
 or more. They were likewise be- 
 loved by the student body, the young 
 men and women who had been under 
 their tuition in the school. Why, 
 when they heard that their beloved 
 President and teachers were to be 
 turned out ruthlessly and for no 
 reason except that the Governor did 
 not like them, they asked permis- 
 sion to hold a meeting and protest 
 against this. That angered the Gov- 
 ernor. Why, he thought they ought 
 not to have that privilege. Senators, 
 you know that when young men go 
 to college they are no longer child- 
 ren; they claim the rights of free 
 American citizens and they claim 
 the right to meet and develop their 
 manhood by developing their own 
 lines of original thought and original 
 action. They met. Finally they con- 
 cluded they would march down to the 
 Governor’s office, or pass at least 
 through the Capitol. They came 
 singing a great old song that I wish 
 to God the Governor had heeded 
 
 and all this trouble would have 
 been spared, and that is that “The 
 Eyes of Texas Are Upon You.” They 
 interfered with nobody. They had 
 a band of music, and if that Gover- 
 nor and that Board of Regents had 
 sat down in their office and closed 
 the windows and gone on with their 
 business, instead of running to the 
 windows like schoolboys watching a 
 circus parade, there would have been 
 no trouble about it at all. But the 
 Governor had to go to the window. 
 He had to demand what was on the 
 banners. And whenever you get to 
 talking to a boy and put yourself 
 on a level with a young fellow he is 
 going to talk back to you. The 
 sooner you learn that, the more 
 trouble you will avoid. Of course, 
 they talked back when he angrily 
 denounced them or demanded of 
 them what they were doing and why 
 the banners were thus floating. As 
 a matter of course young men are 
 going to talk back, and thank God 
 for the spirit that enables them to 
 talk back, because that is the kind 
 of material from which free men are 
 ultimately constructed. I don’t 
 want a milk-sop boy around me; 
 I don’t want him in college and 
 don’t want him in my house. I want 
 him to be a man who stands straight 
 up and teas me what he thinks, if 
 he thinks I am infringing on his 
 privileges I want him to feel free to 
 let me know it and get right with 
 him if I am wrong. But it was re- 
 garded as a terrible, terrible crime 
 for those students, young men and 
 young women, too, — I have seen 
 some of the young women since I 
 have been in Austin, some of these 
 young ladies that were so boisterous 
 and that intimidated that old Board 
 of Regents so much. They even 
 intimidated “Babe” Allen. Yes, it 
 was that crowd. Why, some of 
 those young ladies don’t look 
 like there is a bit of harm in them. 
 Yet that crowd of marching students 
 is made a pretext for closing up that 
 institution and denying to the thou- 
 sands of other youg men and women 
 who had nothing to do with that pro- 
 cession an opportunity for higher edu- 
 cation. Not only that, but the Medical 
 School at Galveston is likewise cut 
 out by the roots. Why? Why? Be- 
 cause Dr. Fly wanted it done. Dr. 
 Fly had a feud with some other doc- 
 tor down there, some of the members 
 of the faculty. Did you know them, 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 885 
 
 Governor Ferguson? No. No. But 
 yet, in this time of stress and war, 
 when our President is calling on us 
 to keep our scientific institutions at 
 high pressure, the Medical branch of 
 this school, this University, must be 
 stricken (Town in order to gratify a 
 quarrel between some angry doctors. 
 Now, I like the doctors. I had to have 
 one last night for a little while. I 
 have some excellent friends among 
 them. But you can take a small town 
 of four or five thousand people and 
 get two groups of doctors and two 
 banks and you have got a perpetual 
 warfare every day in and day out. 
 And yet, oh, how ridiculous! It would 
 be funny if it wasn’t so sad. Here 
 is a man, the Chief Executive of the 
 State, proud, old imperial Texas, sac- 
 rifices the hopes and aspirations of 
 the young men and young women of 
 this State because of a quarrel of Dr. 
 Fly with some other Doctor — and per- 
 haps the other doctor was right in 
 the controversy. A man who will do 
 that ought not to be entrusted with 
 the great power of a Governor. If 
 Dr. Fly can induce him to destroy 
 the Medical School, without his know- 
 ing one single, blessed thing anout it. 
 if he can induce him to do that, what 
 some other friend of his may induce 
 him to do that is equally as bad or 
 worse should he remain in the Gover- 
 nor’s office, God only knows — you can’t 
 even guess. Now, he stated, too, that 
 Dr. Vinson had made a wreck of the 
 Presbyterian College and therefore 
 was not fit for it. Senators, I don’t 
 believe you can have forgotten what 
 took place here on that proposition. 
 There was some reference made to 
 that, and I, speaking for the Board of 
 Managers, told them, “If you want 
 to go into Dr. Vinson’s administration 
 of that Presbyterian Institute, I am 
 ready for you — ready for you. We 
 will not have to go outside of Austin 
 to get our witnesses. They are down 
 here in the American National Bank. 
 Mr. Wroe is the treasurer of the insti- 
 tution and knows all about its assets 
 and liabilities. I am ready to make a 
 show-down with you on that.” Yes, 
 but what did he care? I was even 
 surprised at the Governor. The Gov- 
 ernor quotes a second-hand quotation. 
 You know Mr. Fiset was on the wit- 
 ness stand and he was telling about 
 the effect of the Governor’s giving 
 Wilbur Allen $5,000, that just before 
 he got the five thousand dollar judg- 
 
 ment remitted he said that Dr. Vinson 
 was one of the greatest men of the 
 age, that was about it — a wonderful 
 educator, a man endowed by the Al- 
 mighty with faculties far beyond that 
 of the average man. But the day he 
 got the judgment remitted he imme- 
 diately concluded that Dr. Vinson was. 
 no man at all, that he had wrecked 
 the only institution he was connected 
 with, and was just an ordinary, plain 
 preacher. I didn’t believe that any- 
 body would quote Wilbur’s testimony 
 under those circumstances and I know 
 that no Senator here would give cred- 
 ence to testimony coming through Mr. 
 Fiset, because, if you believe Mr. Fiset, 
 Wilbur changed his ideas about Dr. 
 Vinson under circumstances that have 
 produced considerable inquiry in this 
 community. Why, even the Governor 
 admitted when he was on the witness 
 stand that Wilbur was not loyal to 
 him down at Galveston. No, he could 
 not place him, he could not depend on< 
 him. But the moment he got that 
 judgment remitted, the moment that 
 $5,000 was practically poured into his 
 lap, of your money and my money, 
 from that moment on, Wilbur stood 
 hitched. Yes. Don’t quote him to 
 prove the disqualification of Dr. Vin- 
 son, and particularly when after one 
 experience with him in the House you 
 did not feel like calling him back to 
 the stand here. Now, I must pass 
 that incident here quickly. I do not 
 underestimate the importance of this 
 situation; I am serious, never more so 
 in my life, and when I tell you I have 
 no political ambition, that I once had 
 it but it is gone, thank God! I have 
 no apology, however, to make for my 
 appearance here. I am not even a 
 criminal lawyer; I do no criminal 
 practice either for the prosecution or 
 the defense. I was asked to come 
 here in the beginning of this business 
 by a committee of the Legislature 
 while at my home late after dinner — 
 telephoned to by Judge Barry Miller, 
 representing the committee in March, 
 I accepted their terms and came, and 
 because of my work then and there 
 and my familiarity with the situation 
 the same gentlemen insisted on my 
 coming back to help them in the 
 other investigation in the House. I 
 didn’t feel at liberty to refuse, and 
 then when the articles of impeach- 
 ment were preferred, as these gentle- 
 men know who sit here before me, 
 the Board of Managers, I insisted that 
 
886 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 they could take care of the situation 
 quite as well as I, and I did not want 
 to come back; but they insisted that 
 I ought to come, and I am here. I 
 have some ambition in this connection. 
 You know we are engaged in a world 
 war; our boys are going cut in their 
 uniforms and carrying the flag, carry- 
 ing-civilization and the ideals of this 
 country to faroff lands. I have two 
 of my own there; God grant that they 
 all return, but when they do return I 
 trust that we will have re-established 
 the ideals of the fathers, that a public 
 office is a public trust, and that it 
 cannot and must not be converted 
 into a private snap. That to that prop- 
 osition I am committed, and while 
 in the private ranks as a private citi- 
 zen I will never shirk the responsi- 
 bility in attacking those who are high 
 In power, whenever they transcend 
 what I believe to be the law of the 
 land. 
 
 Now, I am coming to one other 
 question, and then I am going to 
 close; I am going to leave the respon- 
 sibility then with the Senators. One 
 of the most reprehensible and to me 
 most inexcusable things in this whole 
 business is the borrowing of that 
 $156,500. Now, I am speaking plain- 
 ly because there is no other way to 
 speak. We had ascertained that it 
 was true — and I think the Governor 
 knew it — that he had deposited large 
 amounts of currency in various 
 banks; it was such an unusual cir- 
 cumstance that it was impossible to 
 keep it concealed. Therefore, in the 
 House of Representatives he admit- 
 ted, voluntarily stated, that he had 
 been on the verge of bankruptcy, and 
 some of his friends had asked — at 
 least come to his relief and had 
 loaned him $156,500 in cash, but 
 with the distinct understanding that 
 their names should never be dis- 
 closed. The House decided that he 
 ought to disclose those names, still 
 he declined to do it. I did not ask 
 them to have him committed for con- 
 tempt because I knew what the re- 
 sult would be, a habeas corpus case 
 would be the result and we would be 
 rushed off into a blind alley in a 
 court procedure, instead of prosecut- 
 ing the impeachment of the Govern- 
 or. He came over here and he made 
 the same statement. This Senate de- 
 cided by an overwhelming majority 
 that he ought to disclose the sources 
 of that money — where he got it, from 
 
 whom he got it and how he happened 
 to get it. He declines to do it, and 
 in a labored effort of two hours this 
 morning he still declines to give that 
 information. Now, I do not wish to 
 be unjust, but I can not understand — 
 I can not even get a glimpse of a 
 thought or an idea that would make 
 it possible for any friend of any man 
 to lend him money, to risk his cash 
 on him, and at the same time be 
 ashamed or afraid to have it known 
 who he is. You know, you have got 
 to judge normal men by yourself, 
 and I ask any Senator here if he had 
 a friend in trouble — in financial 
 trouble and he wanted to help him, 
 he was willing to help him and will- 
 ing to risk his cash on him — wouldn’t 
 you go — you would go to him and 
 give him your cash, wouldn’t you, 
 and at the same time tell him “I 
 don’t mind it being known that I 
 am lending you the money”; and 
 then last of all when I see — suppose, 
 that I am the man that you are lend- 
 ing the money, and I am your friend 
 and you are mine, when you see me 
 embarrassed, when you see me sus- 
 pected of having gotten that money 
 from wrongful sources or under con- 
 ditions that would do me discredit, 
 is it possible for you or any other 
 normal man to say “Don’t disclose 
 the fact that I let you have it; tar- 
 nish your name, suffer as much as 
 you please, let your reputation for 
 bonest and integrity be dragged down 
 but you must not disclose that I am 
 your friend, that I am the man that 
 let you have the money.” Senators, 
 t can not understand that, I can not 
 even get inside of a circle that will 
 enable me to see even a glimpse of a 
 reason why any man would do that. 
 Now, the American people are a loyal 
 people, and the Governor knows he 
 has some loyal friends, they have 
 stood by him under all sorts of cir- 
 cumstances, and I can’t, I can’t un- 
 derstand why a man filling the high/ 
 office of Governor, clothed with the 
 powers that the Constitution and law 
 clothe him with, with a proud peo- 
 ple who want their Governor to be 
 like Caecar’s wife, not only honest, 
 but above suspicion. I can not un- 
 derstand why he humiliates those 
 people by asking them to let him 
 borrow money under those circum- 
 stances, and yet not tell why or from 
 whom he got it. Now, we know there 
 are many sources that a Governor 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 887 
 
 can not afford to get money from. We 
 know that we hope that that is not 
 It. We have given the Governor 
 every opportunity to exonerate him- 
 self, and I think that he ought not 
 to complain if an adverse decision 
 should be rendered against him on 
 that point, because, as I say, I can 
 not see, I can not understand, and 
 I do not believe any of you can under- 
 stand any reason why any friend of 
 his should suffer him to be put in 
 that humilitating attitude now. If 
 there were no other reason, when a 
 public official is found in the pos- 
 session of $156,500 in currency, 
 brought to him and delivered to 
 him, $20,000 of it kept in a wooden 
 desk in his office for thirty or sixty 
 days, with banks all around him here, 
 not confiding even to his private secre- 
 tary that he has it — these circum- 
 stances are of such a character, and 
 then when he is called upon to ex- 
 plain he declines, “for the reasons 
 stated,” if there were nothing else, 
 that would justify impeachment. 
 
 Now, Senators, I have finished my 
 task. I have not felt like talking 
 to you this afternoon, but I have 
 tried to do my duty as I under- 
 stand it. I owe Governor Ferguson 
 no ill-will, none whatever. I do not 
 pretend to have agreed with him on 
 political questions; I have not. But 
 there are so many men with whom 
 I have not agreed, and yet for whom 
 I have a warm affection even; I am 
 always glad of the fact and proud 
 to know that some of my personal 
 friends have not even been mem- 
 bers of my own political party. I 
 think that man who limits his 
 friendship to his own church, his 
 own creed, or his own policies, is 
 a very narrow man indeed. But I 
 feel that you owe more to Texas 
 than you do to any one man. I know 
 that there is no man here — no Sena- 
 tor here who will vote for Governor 
 Ferguson because he does not like 
 him; that would be mean, spiteful 
 and low. I also believe that there 
 is no Senator here who will refuse 
 to vote against Governor Ferguson 
 because he does like him, because a 
 man who votes upon a public ques- 
 tion like this to shield a friend, has 
 not learned the first principles of 
 American citizenship — not one. It is 
 his duty to vindicate the law. And, 
 new. Senators, unless you do, what 
 you may expect in the future. If 
 
 the Governor can violate the Con- 
 stitution and furnish his grocery 
 supplies, contrary to the statute, 
 what may you expect of the average 
 citizen. Now, I leave it to you. 
 Senators, here — and you are busi- 
 ness men — if you had furnished a 
 ranch, hired a man for $4,000.00 a 
 year, and no more, and had given 
 him the use of the ranch property 
 to live in, and then he would use 
 your money that you had given him 
 for other purposes to handle your 
 estate, to buy groceries, you might 
 not send him to the penitentiary, 
 but you would do with him what we 
 are trying to do with Governor Fer- 
 guson now — you would leave him 
 out of that job; yes, he would not 
 be that manager any more. 
 
 And now, Senators, let me ask 
 you one more thing. If, in the 
 face of a plain statute which says 
 that it is a felony for any officer to 
 deposit the public funds in any 
 place except the State Treasury, it 
 being open, — if you should over- 
 look that now and say that they 
 may deposit it in Kamchatka or any- 
 where else they please, just so they 
 get them to the Treasury within 
 ninety days, the statute notwith- 
 standing, what may you expect of 
 the next set of officers you get in 
 here? And then that is not all, that 
 is not all. Proud old imperial Tex- 
 as, taking her place in the sister- 
 hood of states, shall she have it go 
 forth to the North, to the East, to 
 the West, to the South, that Texas 
 does not exact of her officials obe- 
 dience to the law. Texas exacts 
 that only of the unimportant fel- 
 low down home; that the average 
 citizen may violate a statute and 
 you send him to the penitentiary, 
 and the Governor coolly considers 
 whether he will pardon him. The 
 Governor will violate that statute 
 and you say to him, “Well done, 
 thou faithful servant; thou hast 
 been faithful in violating a few 
 statues, may you yet violate many 
 more.” That is the feeling. 
 
 Texas is on trial now, Senators. 
 Being a part of Texas I have that 
 interest in it. It is to be determ- 
 ined whether Texas will stand up 
 for vindication of the law and 
 whether she will exact from her 
 officers obedience to that law, 
 or whether she will say: “You are 
 licensed libertines, do whatever you 
 please; the law was made for the 
 
888 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 underman, it was not made for 
 you.” 
 
 I thank you, Senators. This is 
 my last appearance before you. I 
 thank you for the courtesies which 
 you have extended all of us during 
 this strenuous hard work of the 
 last three weeks. If any of us have 
 violated any of the rules under the 
 stress of the moment, I sincerely 
 apologize for it. We have tried to 
 conduct the case fairly, we have 
 tried to reach the correct con- 
 clusion, and I leave it in your handg, 
 now, with the most supreme confi- 
 dence that you will do what you be- 
 lieve to be right. 
 
 The Chair: What is the pleasure 
 of the Court? 
 
 Senator Hopkins: Mr. President. 
 
 Senator Bee: Let us have order, 
 Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Order. The Senator 
 from Denton. 
 
 Senator Hopkins: I move that we 
 at this time proceed to consider the 
 articles of impeachment, and vote on 
 them one by one, according to the 
 rules of this Court, in open session. 
 
 Mr. Bee: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: The gentleman from 
 Bexar. 
 
 Senator Bee: In furtherance of 
 the motion of the gentleman from 
 Denton, I believe that it would be 
 proper under the rules as contem- 
 plated — it is a small matter — that 
 the Senators, if possible, should oc- 
 cupy their seats when they cast their 
 votes. I would like, as a Senator, 
 to retain my seat and vote from my 
 seat, if it would not cause too much 
 confusion. 
 
 The Chair: If you are ready to 
 begin voting on the articles of im- 
 peachment, then we will ask those 
 who are visitors and within the 
 range of the seats to please retire 
 outside of the last row of seats on 
 either side, so that the Senators may 
 take their own seats at their own 
 desks. The Senator from Denton 
 moves that we now proceed, under 
 Article 21, to vote on the articles of 
 impeachment separately. Are you 
 ready for the question on that mo- 
 tion — in open session? Those in 
 favor of the motion will signify by 
 saying “Aye”; those oppesed, “No.” 
 The ayes have it, and we will so 
 proceed. 
 
 Senator Lattimore: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: The Senator from 
 Tarrant. 
 
 Senator Lattimore: Is it the pur- 
 pose of the Chair to have each article 
 read and then vote on it? 
 
 The Chair: It is the purpose of 
 the Chair, if not otherwise instruct- 
 ed by the Court, to have Article 1 
 read and then propound this ques- 
 tion to the members of the Court, 
 “Senators, is this article sustained? 
 The Secretary will call the roll, and 
 those who favor sustaining the ar- 
 ticle will answer ‘Aye’; those op- 
 posed, ‘No.’ ” 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: Mr. President, 
 
 I rise on a point of information. 
 
 The Chair: The Senator from El 
 Paso. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: The Chair 
 stated to me that in case any one 
 article is sustained by a two-thirds 
 vote what the judgment of the Court 
 will be in that instance, and how far 
 it will carry. 
 
 The Chair: The judgment would 
 be a judgment of conviction, under 
 Rule 21. Under that rule we will 
 proceed first, though, to have read 
 and vote on all the articles of im- 
 peachment; we will vote on each 
 and all of the articles of impeach- 
 ment. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: Will the Chair 
 state whether that judgment would 
 carry with it a removel from office 
 and a disqualification for holding 
 office in this State? 
 
 The Chair: No, sir, the Chair 
 cannot state that; that will be for 
 the members of the Court to deter- 
 mine that. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: After each and 
 every article has been voted on? 
 
 The Chair: Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Bee: Will the Senator 
 from El Paso yield to the Senator 
 from Bexar? 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: Yes, sir; I 
 yield. 
 
 Senator Bee: It occurs to me that 
 there is a good deal of force in the 
 suggestion made by the Senator from 
 Tarrant this morning, that after the 
 vote had been taken and the judg- 
 ment rendered, a committee be ap- 
 pointed to confer with the Senator 
 from Tarrant to formulate the form 
 of judgment to be rendered in the 
 Senate. That would cover the ques- 
 tion, I think, asked by the Senator 
 from El Paso. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: I would like 
 to ask the Senator from Bexar if 
 that judgment, in his judgment, will 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 889 
 
 be adopted by a majority or by a 
 two-thirds vote? 
 
 Senator Bee: I will observe to 
 the Senator from El Paso that I have 
 not considered the question before, 
 but I imagine that it will be by a 
 two-thirds vote, though I am not 
 prepared to pass on that question at 
 this time, and I think that would be 
 one of the matters to be considered 
 in arriving at the judgment, though 
 I am not prepared to answer that 
 question, because I have not consid- 
 ered it. 
 
 The Chair: Has the Senator from 
 McLennan returned to the Chamber? 
 
 I see the Senator from McLennan 
 has returned. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: I will state 
 to the Chair that I think it is very 
 essential to know these matters. 
 
 The Chair: Well, the Chair would 
 not have the authority to decide 
 these matters, nor is the Chair sat- 
 isfied himself as to that question. 
 The Chair is of the opinion — 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: I should think 
 that the vote of the Senators upon^ 
 these articles would determine the 
 magnitude of the verdict reached. 
 
 The Chair: The Chair is of the 
 opinion that that matter under the 
 rule would be determined by the 
 Court — the Senate sitting as a Court, 
 after the articles have all been voted 
 on. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: Yes, sir. By 
 what majority? 
 
 The Chair: Well, I can’t say. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: There is no 
 rule covering that? 
 
 Senator Hopkins: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: The Senator from 
 Denton. 
 
 Senator Hopkins: I would like to 
 call Rule 21 to the attention of the 
 Court. I think that settles the ques- 
 tion. We will first vote on the ar- 
 ticles, and then frame the judgment. 
 
 The Chair: Yes, sir. The Secre- 
 tary will read Article 1. 
 
 Senator Bailey: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Senator Bailey. 
 
 Senator Bailey: Mr. President, 
 before this article is read, and be- 
 fore we vote, I ask that the roll of 
 the Senate be called so that if any 
 of the Senators are absent, opportun- 
 ity may be given to get them here. 
 
 The Chair: AU right. (To the 
 Secretary) : Call the roll. 
 
 Senator Bailey: There were two. 
 or three absent. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: I don’t under- 
 stand, I can’t hear the Senator from 
 DeWitt. 
 
 Senator Bailey: I asked that the 
 roll of the Senate be called. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Bailey: So that if any of 
 the Senators are absent they may be 
 sent for. They all desire to vote. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 call the roll. 
 
 (Thereupon, the Secretary of the 
 Senate called the roll, as follows, to 
 wit: ) 
 
 Alderdice. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. 
 Buchanan of Scurry. 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 Johnson of Hall. 
 Johnston of Harris. 
 Lattimore. 
 McCollum. 
 McNealus. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: The Senator 
 from Tarrant desires to be marked 
 “present”; he has gone to answer a 
 long distance telephone call. 
 
 The Secretary: The Senator from 
 Fayette is absent. 
 
 The Chair: All are here except 
 Senator Clark. I wish the Assistant 
 Sergeant-at-Arms and the pages 
 would try to locate Senator Clark, 
 and tell him we are ready to begin 
 voting. 
 
 The Secretary: Do you want to 
 wait for him? 
 
 The Chair: Yes, wait just a min- 
 ute and see if we can locate him. 
 
 Senator Caldwell: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Senator Caldwell. 
 
 Senator Caldwell: I would like to 
 ask if it would not be proper for the 
 Court to pass upon the demurrers pre- 
 sented by the Respondent. 
 
 The Chair: Counsel for the Respon- 
 dent said that they would ask for no 
 vote on the demurrers, that was the 
 statement of Mr. Hanger yesterday, 
 that is the way the Chair understood 
 him. 
 
 Senator Caldwell: They waive the 
 demurrers then 
 
 The Chair: That was his statement 
 
890 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 that they asked for no vote on fhera. 
 Has anyone seen the Senator from Fa- 
 yette for the last half hour? 
 
 Senator Hopkins: Mr. President, he 
 has been absent all the afternoon. 
 
 Senator Bailey: He is in the build- 
 ing somewhere. 
 
 Senator Bee: Mr. President, I sug- 
 gest that the Senator from Fayette 
 may have anticipated a longer argu- 
 ment, in view of the time alloted Gen- 
 eral Crane. I think his hat is there, 
 he must be somewhere about the build- 
 ing. 
 
 The Chair: The Senate is full. 
 The Secretary will read the first article 
 of impeachment. 
 
 Judge Martin: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Judge Martin. 
 
 Judge Martin: I think the Chair 
 probably misunderstood about Counsel 
 for Respondent waiving the demurrers. 
 What we stated was that we were will- 
 ing to have them all considered to- 
 gether, and voted on together, so far 
 as that is concerned; but we do not 
 want to be placed in the attitude of 
 waiving anything. 
 
 The Chair: Well, Mr. Hanger 
 
 stated yesterday he asked for no sep- 
 arate vote on the demurrers. 
 
 Judge Martin: No, we are asking 
 no separate vote, but we do not want 
 to be placed in the attitude of having 
 waived anything — that is, if we have 
 any rights that are presented in the 
 demurrers. We do not waive them. 
 
 Senator Bee: Mr. President, does 
 Judge Martin yield? 
 
 The Chair: Does Judge Martin 
 yield to the Senator from Bexar? 
 
 Judge Martin: Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Bee: It occurs to me that 
 the understanding would be that we 
 vote, and if any Senator believes that 
 a demurrer would lie to the charge, 
 he would be justified in voting against 
 the sustaining of that charge, because 
 a demurrer should lie against it. 
 
 Judge Martin: Yes, sir, that was — 
 
 Senator Bee: I don’t understand, 
 Mr. President, that counsel intended 
 to waive. 
 
 Judge Martin: No, sir. 
 
 The Chair: Just waive the sepa- 
 rate vote. Of course, if a Senator be- 
 lieves that it is not impeachable mat- 
 ter, the Senator in that case will vote 
 “No.” 
 
 Judge Martin: As stated by the 
 Senator from Bexar, our position was 
 that we did not want to place upon 
 the Senators the responsibility of a 
 
 separate vote, but that they might 
 consider the demurrers and the 
 charges together, and that in the 
 event, in their opinion, the demurrer 
 should be sustained, that each Sena- 
 tor could so act on it in his vote, on 
 the charge, that is the point. 
 
 The Chair: Yes, sir, the Chair un* 
 derstands it that way. Senator Clarke 
 I will state for your information, that 
 the Senate, by a unanimous vote, de- 
 cided that we begin voting on these 
 charges separately, as provided by 
 Rule 21. The Secretary will read Ar- 
 ticle 1. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: Mr. President, 
 as the roll is called, I move that each 
 Senator rise in his seat in casting his 
 vote. 
 
 The Chair: Let me finish the 
 statement I was making to Senator 
 Clark. 
 
 Senator Woodward: I agree with 
 the Senator from El Paso, I think 
 that would be a wise idea. 
 
 Senator Strickland: Mr. President, 
 all the Senators are not as handsome 
 as the Senator from El Paso, and I 
 don’t think that his motion is quite 
 fair. 
 
 The Chair: Well, we will put the 
 motion anyway. The Chair will state 
 for the information of Senator Clark 
 that during his abense from the 
 Chamber — 
 
 Senator Woodward: Mr. Presi- 
 
 dent. 
 
 The Chair: The Chair would like 
 to have an opportunity of finishing 
 this statement to Senator Clark, ilf 
 the Senator from Erath yields? 
 
 Senator Woodward: Yes, sir, par- 
 don me. 
 
 The Chair (Resuming his state- 
 ment to Senator Clark) : By a unani- 
 mous vote the Senate decided that in 
 voting on the articles of impeach- 
 ment we would vote on each article 
 separately, and that we will follow 
 this procedure: The Secretary will 
 read the articles in their order, and 
 after each article is read the Chair 
 will propound to the Senators this 
 question: “Is this article of impeach- 
 ment sustained?” Those who so find 
 — and the Secretary will call the roll, 
 and those who so find will answer 
 “Aye,” and those who do not so find, 
 will answer “No.” Does the Senator 
 from El Paso want his motion put? 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chair: The Senator from El 
 Paso moves that as each Senator's 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 891 
 
 name is called he rise at his place 
 and answer “aye” or “no.” as the 
 case may be. Those in favor of the 
 motion signify by saying “aye,” 
 those opposed, “no.” The ayes have 
 it. 
 
 Senator Bee: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Senator Bee. 
 
 Senator Bee: The Senator from 
 Erath asks recognition from the 
 Chair. 
 
 Senator Woodward: Mr. Presi- 
 
 dent, I want to make a little inquiry, 
 and that is this, that under the rule 
 is it necessary that all the charges 
 be read? 
 
 The Chair: No, sir, one charge 
 will be read and we will vote on that. 
 
 Senator Woodward: Yes, sir, I 
 want to know whether it is necessary 
 for the charges to be read. 
 
 The Chair: Yes, sir, I think so. 
 
 Senator Woodward: Can’t we by 
 motion eliminate that; that would 
 take a long time. 
 
 The Chair: That won’t take very 
 long. The Chair himself would likej 
 to have the charges read before vot- 
 ing on them, because we can’t re- 
 member them. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Senator Hudspeth. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: I think it 
 would be well at this time for the 
 Chair to again recall to this audience 
 that this is a solemn occasion, and 
 there will be no demonstration what- 
 ever on the results of the voting. If 
 people come here as idle curiosity 
 seekers, they have got no business 
 here or in the galleries. 
 
 The Chair: The Chair agrees 
 most hearitly in the statement of the 
 Senator from El Paso. We can’t for 
 one moment tolerate any kind of 
 demonstration for or against any 
 man. the result of the vote as a 
 whole, or against any man’s vote, and 
 we do not believe, having been thus 
 admonished that any in the gallery 
 or in the Chambers will offend. The 
 Secretary will read Article 1. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon read 
 Article 1, as follows, to wit:) 
 
 “That there was paid from the 
 funds of the Canyon City Normal 
 School deposited with the Temple 
 State Bank on August 23, 1915, a 
 note of $5000 together with $600 in- 
 terest due by James E. Ferguson to 
 the First National Bank of Temple, 
 Texas. That said amount has never 
 been refunded to the State of Texas. 
 
 That in part payment of the total due, 
 for the building of the Canyon City 
 Normal College he used other funds, 
 a portion of which belonged to the 
 State, and the balance being in his 
 hands as Governor, and deposited to 
 his credit as Governor in the Ameri- 
 can National Bank of Austin, which 
 acts constitute a violation of law.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, what say 
 you to this article of impeachment? 
 Is it sustained or not sustained? 
 Those who believe that it is sustained 
 will answer “aye” as their names are 
 called; those who do not so believe 
 will answer “no.” The Secretary 
 will call the roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called 
 the roll, the vote being as follows, to 
 wit: ) 
 
 Yeas — 27. 
 
 Alderdice. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. 
 Buchanan of Scurry 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 Johnson of Hall. 
 Johnston of Harris. 
 .Lattimore. 
 McCollum. 
 McNealus. 
 
 "Page. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Nays — 4. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 The Secretary: Twenty-seven “ayes” 
 and four “noes,” Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: There being twenty- 
 seven “ayes” and four “noes,” the 
 article is sustained. 
 
 Senator Bee: Let’s have order, 
 Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Let’s have order, per- 
 fect order. 
 
 (The following reasons, in writing, 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court.) 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 -s The supreme moment has come. 
 The clock has struck the hour when 
 the issues between the Common- 
 wealth of Texas and its Chief Execu- 
 tive must be decided. My relations 
 with the Chief Executive have been 
 politically and personally friendly- 
 
892 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 Every wish of my heart has been to 
 vote against sustaining the articles 
 or any of them, but my duty under 
 my oath and to my people demands 
 that I should vote to sustain charge 
 Number One. I cannot believe that 
 the Governor could remain ignorant 
 of a transaction of the character 
 charged in this article especially 
 when the subsequent use of the funds 
 in the Adjutant General’s Depart- 
 ment and the Highway Funds made 
 up, together with his check for 
 $1800, the exact amount due to pay 
 the note of $5 600 which was paid out 
 of the Canyon City funds — a trust 
 fund. 
 
 The Senate has confronted a very 
 serious and momentous situation, 
 “but believing that the evidence sus- 
 tained the charge I vote “aye.” 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no,” on Article 1 of the 
 impeachment charges against Gov- 
 ernor James E. Ferguson, for the 
 reason that the undisputed proof is 
 that Governor Ferguson had no 
 knowledge whatever of the use of 
 the $5600 of the Canyon City Normal 
 Fund in the payment of an indebted- 
 ness of his; that it unquestionably 
 and without any contradiction oc- 
 curred by reason of a mistake on the 
 part of the officers of the bank, with 
 which Governor Ferguson was whol- 
 ly unacquainted. And that in addi- 
 tion to all this, he has paid to the 
 State of Texas every cent of money 
 ever entrusted to him as Governor 
 in every and any way, whatsoever, 
 and does not owe the State of Texas 
 one cent or one penny, having scrup- 
 ulously accounted for all moneys en- 
 trusted to him. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 “I would gladly resign my seat as 
 a Senator, if that would clear the 
 Governor. He is my friend and I 
 expect to continue to be his friend. 
 I would do anything, in my power, 
 for him on account of my friendship 
 for him and his brother, A. M. Fer- 
 guson, who was my schoolmate at 
 A. and M. College. But I owe a 
 higher duty to the State than that of 
 friendship or of sympathy to anyone. 
 To shirk my duty, under the law and 
 evidence, as my conscience dictates, 
 would be worse than cowardly. 
 
 “Believing beyond doubt that Ar- 
 ticle 1 has been proven, as alleged, 
 
 in the articles of impeachment, I 
 vote ‘aye.’ ” 
 
 DAYTON. 
 
 The Chair: Read Article 2, Mr. 
 Secretary. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon read 
 Article 2, as follows, to wit:) 
 
 “That James E. Ferguson received 
 from former Governor O. B. Colquitt 
 more than $101,000, the proceeds 
 from insurance policies on the Can- 
 yon City Normal School. That at 
 the time said moneys were turned 
 over to him they were on deposit in 
 banks bearing interest at from four 
 /and one-half to five per cent and 
 which remained there for approxi- 
 mately one year, and that he depos- 
 ited the other amounts in banks in 
 which he was interested as a stock- 
 holder, and in the American National 
 Bank, to which he shortly afterwards 
 became indebted. That he received 
 direct and personal profit as a stock- 
 holder of the Temple State Bank 
 from the deposit placed with it; thus 
 using and misapplying State funds 
 for his individual benefit and profit.” 
 
 The Chair: Before putting the 
 question on this article, someone sent 
 up his reasons without signing them. 
 Was that the Senator from Fayette?^ 
 
 Senator Clark: No, sir, I will 
 send up my reasons later, Mr. Presi- 
 dent. 
 
 The Chair: Someone, Senator Day- 
 ton? 
 
 Senator Dayton: Mr. President, 
 that was mine. 
 
 Senator Clark: Mr. President, I 
 want to state that I am going to vote 
 “no” on everything, and I want to 
 send up my reasons for every vote, 
 I will state that; and I will send it 
 up to the Journal Clerk. 
 
 The Chair: All right. Senators, 
 the question is, shall this article be 
 sustained or not sustained? Those 
 who believe that it is sustained will 
 answer “aye” as their names are; 
 called; those who do not so believe 
 will answer “no.” The Secretary, 
 will call the roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called 
 the roll, the vote being as follows, to 
 wit: ) 
 
 Yeas — 26. 
 
 Alderdice. Buchanan of Rell. 
 
 Bailey. Buchanan of Scurry. 
 
 Bee. Caldwell. 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 893 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Declierd. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Johnson of Hall. 
 
 Johnston of Harris. 
 Lattimore. 
 McCollum. 
 McNealus. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Nays — 5. 
 
 Clark. Hudspeth. 
 
 Hall. Woodward. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 The Secretary (to the .Chair): 
 Twenty-six ayes and five noes. 
 
 The Chair: There being twenty- 
 six ayes and five noes, Article 2 is 
 sustained. 
 
 that exact sum of money, that is 
 $101,607.18, to the rebuilding of the 
 buildings at said school, although 
 counsel for the House Managers used 
 every effort and made many insinua- 
 tions that a larger sum was turned 
 over to Governor Ferguson, but this 
 effort wholly failed and Governor 
 Ferguson’s statement as to the, 
 amount received and its expenditure^ 
 stands unchallenged in the record. 
 Notwithstanding the fact that Gov- 
 ernor Ferguson has been during his 
 tenure in office entrusted with large 
 sums of money, not one cent has ever 
 yet been spent except for the pur- 
 pose for which it was turned over to 
 him and for which it was appropri- 
 ated by the Legislature of the State, 
 of Texas. Not one cent is in his 
 hands now; his hands are entirely 
 clean of the State’s money or of any 
 profit from it. 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court) : 
 
 I vote “aye” to sustain charge 
 2 because former Governor Colquitt 
 had the Canyon City fund amounting 
 to $101,000 in banks paying interest 
 on same and giving a bond for safe 
 keeping. Immediately upon Govern- 
 or Ferguson’s inauguration he began 
 to transfer this fund to other banks 
 without interest, and placed approx- 
 imately $50,000 of same in the Tem- 
 ple State Bank of which he was a 
 stockholder and the same was loaned 
 out by the Temple State Bank as ap- 
 pears from the statement of said 
 bank. The Governor therefore de- 
 rived the benefit from the use of 
 State money in violation of law, and 
 for that reason I have cast my vote 
 as above stated. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 2 of the im- 
 peachment charges preferred against 
 Governor James E. Ferguson, be- 
 cause the testimony shows that Gov- 
 ernor James E. Ferguson, upon tak- 
 ing his office on January 19, 1915, 
 and subsequent thereto, had turned 
 over to him the sum of $101,607.18 
 as money derived from insurance col- 
 lected on the burned buildings of the 
 Canyon City Normal School. Gov- 
 ernor Ferguson exhibited to the Sen- 
 ate sitting as a Court of Impeach- 
 ment, checks showing the payment of 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 read Article 3. 
 
 Senator Bee: Mr. President, I 
 suggest, with respect to the gallery, 
 that it is not necessary to move 
 about when the vote is announced; 
 they can keep their seats just as well 
 when the roll is being called, and in 
 this way save confusion. 
 
 The Chair: The suggestion is a 
 wise one. We want you to remain 
 perfectly still, because we want to 
 conclude the vote as expeditiously as 
 we may. 
 
 Senator Clark: Mr. President, I 
 suggest that the Chair put a few 
 rangers up there to preserve order. 
 
 Senator McNealus: I do not think 
 that anybody is making as much 
 noise as these pages running back 
 and forth here, in and out the door. 
 
 The Chair: Do not call upon the 
 pages at this time any more than 
 you can help, Senators. (To the 
 Secretary) : Read Article 3. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon read 
 Article 3, as follows, to wit) : 
 
 “Article 3. That James E. Fergu- 
 son testified under oath on March 11 
 and 12, 1917, before the House In- 
 vestigating Committee that he had 
 made arrangements with the Hous- 
 ton National Exchange Bank to take 
 up two certain promissory notes, one 
 signed by A. F. Ferguson and one 
 signed by J. H. Davis, Jr., each for 
 the sum of $37,500. That he fur- 
 ther testified that he was not indebt- 
 I ed to the Temple State Bank at that 
 
894 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 time. That as a matter of fact, the 
 indebtedness represented by the said 
 notes was the personal indebtedness 
 of the said James E. Ferguson, and 
 the said notes had been executed by 
 A. F. Ferguson and J. H. Davis, Jr., 
 at the instance of James E. Fergu- 
 son, and for his accommodation. 
 That he had guaranteed the payment 
 of both of said notes, the makers 
 whereof were utterly unable to pay 
 them, which said fact was known 
 to James E. Ferguson. That said 
 notes were eventually transferred to 
 the Houston National Exchange 
 Bank for a period of about ten days 
 only with the endorsement of and 
 guarantee of the Temple State Bank, 
 and the agreement to repurchase 
 within a few days, and the added 
 obligation that said Temple State 
 Bank should maintain, during the 
 period of time the notes should be 
 held by said Houston National Ex- 
 change Bank, on deposit with said 
 bank, an average daily and compen- 
 sating balance' in amount equal to 
 the total amount of said notes, to 
 wit, $7 5,000. That as a matter of 
 fact, said James E. Ferguson was 
 still liable on said notes, and same 
 were transferred only for a period 
 of ten days, and that said transfer 
 of the notes was not bona fide.” • 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 is. Shall this article be sustained? 
 Those of you who believe the article 
 should be sustained will answer aye 
 as your names are called. Those 
 who do not so believe will answer 
 no. The Secretary will call the roll. 
 
 Yeas — 18. 
 
 Alderd ? co. Johnston of Harris. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. Lattimore. 
 Buchanan of Scurry. McNealus. 
 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Johnson of 
 
 Hall. Westbrook. 
 
 
 Nays — 13. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 McCollum. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 
 The Secretary (to the Chair): 
 Eighteen ayes and thirteen noes. 
 
 The Chair: There being eighteen 
 ayes and thirteen noes, this article 
 is not sustained. 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court: 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 3 because 
 while I believe that the conduct was 
 improper the Governor has stated 
 that when he transferred the notes 
 of James H. Davis, Jr., and A. F. 
 Ferguson he guaranteed the payment 
 of said note, and as he was solvent 
 the Houston National Exchange 
 Bank, to which the said notes were 
 temporarily transferred was protect- 
 ed. This transaction does not in- 
 volve the conduct of the State af- 
 fairs, but was an affair dealing with 
 the Governor’s private indebtedness. 
 I fel that while it ought to be con- 
 demned, it is not impeachable. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 3 of the 
 impeachment charges against Gov- 
 ernor James E. Ferguson, because 
 the testimony shows that on the 11th 
 and 12th days of March, 1917, while 
 the Governor was being heard before 
 the House Investigating Committee 
 appointed to inquire into certain 
 charges against him, the two notes, 
 one signed by A. F. Ferguson and 
 the other by J. H. Davis, Jr., each 
 for the pum of $37,500, and payable 
 to the Temple State Bank, had been 
 taken up by the Houston National 
 Exchange Bank and sold to that 
 bank, and while it has been claimed 
 by counsel for the House Managers 
 that the sale was not genuine and 
 was one only arranged in order that 
 the time during which the Investi- 
 gating Committee would be in session 
 might pass by, yet all the evidence 
 contradicts and conclusively dis- 
 proves this theory of the claim. The 
 president of the Houston bank testi- 
 fied that he bought the notes; the 
 Governor testified that he sold the 
 notes; no witness has testified to the 
 contrary, and this charge, therefore, 
 wholly fails in proof. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 read Article 4. 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 895 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon read Ar- 
 ticle 4, as follows, to wit) : 
 
 Nays— 13. 
 
 “Article 4. That Janies E. Fergu- 
 son testified before the House In- 
 vestigating Committee within sixty 
 days prior to his giving said testi- 
 mony he had caused to be paid into 
 the Temple State Bank $112,500 and 
 $15,000. In other words, $127,500 
 in cash to the Temple State Bank. 
 That as a matter of fact. $75,000 of 
 said amount was represented by the 
 A. F. Ferguson note and the J. H. 
 Davis note of $37,500 each, and that 
 same were not paid to the Temple 
 State Bank in cash, but were only 
 transferred to the Houston National 
 Exchange Bank to be held for a 
 period of about ten days. That as 
 a matter of fact said notes were still 
 due by James E. Ferguson, because 
 the makers within his knowledge 
 were not able to pay same, and he 
 had guaranteed them in writing to 
 the Temple State Bank. That said 
 transfer did not relieve the Temple 
 State Bank of the excessive loan of 
 James E. Ferguson, because said two 
 notes were endorsed and payment 
 guaranteed by the Temple State 
 Bank; and the said James E. Fer- 
 guson and the Temple State Bank 
 knew that after a period of about 
 ten days said notes could be returned 
 to the Temple State Bank. That 
 said two notes were actually re- 
 turned to the Temple State Bank, 
 and that after said committee had 
 adjourned the Temple State Bank 
 was carrying again the same two 
 notes in violation of the laws of the 
 State of Texas.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 is: Shall Article 4 be sustained? 
 Those who find that Article 4 should 
 be sustained- will answer aye as their 
 names are called; those opposed will 
 answer no. The Secretary will call 
 the roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called 
 the roll as follows, to wit) : 
 
 Yeas — 18. 
 
 AlderdLe. Johnston of Harris. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. Lattimore. 
 Buchanan of Scurry. McNealus. 
 Caldwell. Page. 
 
 Collins. Robbins. 
 
 Decherd. Smith. 
 
 Floyd. Strickland. 
 
 Gibson. Suiter. 
 
 Johnson of Hall. Westbrook. 
 
 Bailey. Henderson. 
 
 Bee. Hopkins. 
 
 Clark. Hudspeth. 
 
 Dayton. McCollum. 
 
 Dean. Parr. 
 
 Hall. Woodward. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 The Secretary (To the Chair): 
 Eighteen ayes and thirteen noes, Mr. 
 President. 
 
 The Chair: There being eighteen 
 ayes and thirteen noes. Article 4 is 
 not sustained. 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the; 
 Court, to wit:) 
 
 I assign the same reason for my 
 vote for Articles 4 and 5 as given 
 for my vote on Article 3. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 4 of the 
 articles of impeachment preferred 
 against Governor James E. Ferguson, 
 for the reasons stated above under 
 Articles 2 and 3, and for the addi- 
 tional reason that the time of such 
 investigation, to wit: On the 11th 
 and 12th days of March, 1917, the 
 two notes in question were abun- 
 dantly secured by collateral of un- 
 questioned and undoubted value; 
 that they had been .sold in a bona 
 fide transaction and trade by the 
 Temple State Bank to the Houston 
 National Exchange Bank; that they 
 were returned at the request of the 
 president of the Temple State Bank, 
 which request was unknown to the 
 Governor and as soon as it was dis- 
 covered by the Governor he demand- 
 ed that said notes be returned to said 
 Houston bank, and that by reason of 
 the facts and circumstances and 
 agreement concerning the original 
 loan, which these two notes in part 
 represented, said loan was not in 
 violation of either the spirit or the 
 letter of the banking laws of Texas. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 read Article 5. 
 
 (Thereupon, the Secretary read Ar- 
 ticle 5, as follows, to wit:) 
 
 “Article 5. That James E. Fergu- 
 son testified under oath before the 
 
896 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 House Investigating Committee on 
 March 11 and 12, 1917, that he was 
 not indebted to the Temple State Bank. 
 That at said time he owed the said 
 bank a note for $11,243.07, on which 
 there had been paid by him on Feb- 
 ruary 13, 1917, and less than a month 
 before he testified, the sum of about 
 $3,029.00, leaving a balance due on 
 said note of more than $8,000, which 
 was then owing to the Temple State 
 Bank, and was not paid until June 16, 
 1917.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 is, shall Article 5 be sustained? Those 
 who find that said Article 5 shall be 
 sustained, will answer “Aye” as their 
 names are called; those opposed, “No.” 
 The Secretary will call the roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon proceed- 
 ed to call the roll as follows, to wit: ) 
 
 Yeas — 14. 
 
 Alderdice. Johnson of Hall. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. McNealus. 
 Buchanan of Scurry. Robbins. 
 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Nays — 17 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 Johnston of Harris. 
 
 Lattimore. 
 
 McCollum. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 The Secretary (To the Chair) : 
 Fourteen Ayes and seventeen Noes. 
 
 The Chair: There being fourteen 
 Ayes and seventeen Noes, Article 5 is 
 not sustained. 
 
 that at the time the Governor testi- 
 fied before the House Investigating 
 Committee, on the 11th and 12th 
 days of March, 1917, he did not 
 know that the note known as the 
 Whitley Cotton Company note, and 
 which is otherwise described as the 
 Alex Mears & Co. note, was owned 
 by the Temple State Bank; and for 
 the further reason that all of the 
 testimony disputes the charge and 
 claim that the Governor knowingly 
 misstated any fact in connection with 
 the said Whitley Cotton Company 
 note. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 read Article 6. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon read Ar- 
 ticle 6, as follows, to wit:) 
 
 “Article 6. That there was deposit- 
 ed by James E. Ferguson, in Jthe Tem- 
 ple State Bank on or about the month 
 of January. 1917, the sum of $60,000 
 belonging to the State of Texas and 
 in the possession of the Secretary of 
 State by virtue of his office, said 
 amount being represented by a check 
 of the Secretary of State, althougn the 
 State Treasury was open for the pur- 
 pose of receiving same. That James 
 E. Ferguson was a stockholder in said 
 bank, owning more than one-fourth of 
 the stock, and that the said Temple 
 State Bank and James E. Ferguson 
 used said fund and received^ the profit 
 and benefit, the said James E. Fergu* 
 son receiving more than one-fourth of 
 the profits and of the benefits.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 is, shall Article 6 be sustained? Those 
 who believe that said Article 6 shall 
 be sustained, will answer “Aye,” when 
 their names are called; those who do 
 not so believe, will answer “No.” The 
 Secretary will call the roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called the 
 roll, as follows, to wit:) 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 Yeas — 24. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court, to wit:) 
 
 I assign the same reason for my 
 vote for Articles 4 and 5 as given 
 for my vote on Article 3. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 5 of the 
 impeachment charges preferred 
 against Governor James E. Ferguson 
 because the undisputed testimony is 
 
 Alderdice. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. 
 Buchanan of Scurry. 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Johnson of Hall. 
 Lattimore. 
 McCollum. 
 McNealus. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 897 
 
 Nays — 7. 
 
 Clark. Johnston of Harris. 
 
 Dayton. Parr. 
 
 Hall. Woodward. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 The Secretary (To the Chair) : 
 Twenty-four Ayes and seven Noes. 
 
 The Chair: There being twenty- 
 four Ayes and seven Noes, Article 6 is 
 sustained. 
 
 besides, has already been turned in 
 and that the Treasurer was settled 
 with promptly at the time when such 
 settlements were required to be 
 made, is convincing of the proof that 
 placing it on deposit in the Temple 
 State Bank did not in any way en- 
 danger its safety. Therefore, most 
 manifestly, this charge is not made 
 out. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the Court, 
 to wit: ) 
 
 I vote “aye” on Article 6 because 
 I believe that as soon as the money 
 is properly cleared it ought to be de- 
 posited in the State Treasury as con- 
 templated by law. The evidence un- 
 der this charge shows that the Gov- 
 ernor secured a check from the Sec- 
 retary of State and took same at 
 night to Temple and deposited in the 
 Temple State Bank, in which he was 
 a stockholder and for the purpose of 
 arranging a difficulty existing be- 
 tween himself and the Board of Di- 
 rectors by giving the said bank a 
 large deposit. This constituted a mis- 
 application of funds under the law. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 6 of the 
 articles of impeachment preferred 
 against Governor James E. Ferguson 
 for the reason that under Article 
 3836 of the Revised Civil Statutes 
 of 1911, I believe that franchise taxes 
 are only required to be settled for 
 with the State Treasurer every nine- 
 ty days; that by the express terms 
 of Articles; 3837, 3838, 3839 and 
 3840, only Vhe Tees of office are re- 
 quired to be paid into the State 
 Treasury monthly. An entirely dif- 
 ferent, separate and distinct chapter 
 of the statute is devoted to the sub- 
 ject of franchise taxes, and, there- 
 fore, I have satisfied myself that the 
 settlement of the franchise taxes are 
 only required quarterly. This being 
 true, it was necessary to put the 
 amount of money mentioned in this 
 article, to wit: $6 0,000, in some 
 bank, because the time had not ar- 
 rived in which it could or was re- 
 quired to be placed in the State 
 Treasury. One bank, if safe, was as 
 good as another, and the fact that 
 all of this money, and much more 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 is, shall Article 7 be sustained You 
 who find that said Article shall be sus- 
 tained, will answer “Aye” as your 
 names are called; those of you who 
 find it shall not be sustained, will 
 answer “No.” The Secretary will 
 call the roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called the 
 roll, as follows, to wit:) 
 
 Yeas — 26. 
 
 Alderdice. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell 
 Buchanan of Scurry. 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Johnson of Hall. 
 Johnston of Harris. 
 Lattimore. 
 McCollum. 
 McNealus. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Nays — 5. 
 
 Clark. Parr, 
 
 Hall. Woodward. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 The Secretary (To the Chair) * 
 Twenty-six Ayes and five Noes, Mr. 
 President. 
 
 The Chair: There being twenty- 
 six Ayes and five Noes, Article 7 is 
 sustained. 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the Court, 
 to wit: ) 
 
 I vote “aye” on Article 7 because 
 the Governor after the investigation 
 in the House in March of 1917 ac- 
 companied by the President of the 
 Temple State Bank deposited with 
 the American National Bank of Aus- 
 tin, $250,000 of the State’s funds, 
 
898 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 which should have been transferred 
 to the Treasury and the American 
 National Bank paid to the Temple 
 State Bank of which the Governor 
 was a stockholder interest on said 
 deposit, and this in my opinion con- 
 stituted a violation of law. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 7 of the im- 
 peachment charges preferred against 
 Governor James E. Ferguson, for the 
 same reasons as just set forth with 
 reference to Article 6, and for the 
 still further reason that the undis- 
 puted proof is that the Governor 
 knew nothing about any interest ar- 
 rangement between any of the Aus- 
 tin banks and the Temple State Bank 
 and believed that in truth and in fact 
 no interest would be paid by the 
 American National Bank, or any 
 other Austin bank, to the Temple 
 State Bank in view of the short time 
 that would lapse between the times 
 of depositing the moneys mentioned 
 in these articles and the times when 
 settlements were required by law to 
 be made with the State Treasurer. 
 The unquestioned proof is that the 
 question of profit or benefit to the 
 Governor never entered his mind and 
 was not considered by him. There 
 is no proof that it was. The Govern- 
 or’s testimony is uncontradicted that 
 it did not. And. therefore, this 
 charge is not sustained. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 Read Article 8. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon read Ar- 
 ticle 8, as follows, to wit: ) 
 
 “Article 8. That James E. Fergu- 
 son sought to have the State Highway 
 Commissioner deposit State funds of 
 that department with the Temple State 
 Bank so that said bank might receive 
 the profit and benefit from same, and 
 he being a heavy stockholder, would 
 have received a portion of the bene- 
 fits. That he also had, or permitted, 
 other departments of the State govern- 
 ment to deposit money with the Tem- 
 ple State Bank, or with other banks, 
 to the credit of the Temple State Bank, 
 said amounts belonging to the State 
 of Texas, and that the Temple State 
 Bank profited from the use of said 
 funds, and that said James E. Fergu- 
 son received more than one-fourth of 
 the profit and benefit.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 
 is, shall Article 8 be sustained? Those 
 who believe that said Article 8 should 
 be sustained, will answer “Aye” as 
 their names are called; those who do 
 not so believe, will answer “No.” The 
 Secretary will call the roll. 
 
 (The Secertary thereupon called tl\g 
 roll, as follows, to wit:) 
 
 Yeas — 9. 
 
 Alderdice. Decherd. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell.Johnson of Hall. 
 Buchanan of Scurry. Lattimore. 
 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Nays — 2 2. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Johnston of Harris. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 McCo”™ 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 McNealus. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 The Secretary (to the Chair): 
 There being nine “ayes” and twenty- 
 two “noes,” the article is not sus- 
 tained. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court, to wit:) 
 
 Reason for Vote. 
 
 I do not consider that there is any 
 merit in Charge 8, 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 8 of the im- 
 peachment charges preferred against 
 Governor James E. Ferguson, for the 
 reason that the testimony of the Hon. 
 Curtis Hancock, chairman of the 
 State Highway Commission, estab- 
 lishes beyond any doubt that the 
 Governor only offered to recommend 
 that the Temple State Bank help ac- 
 commodate the State Highway Com- 
 mission in collecting checks sent to 
 the Commision under the law passed 
 by the Thirty-fifth Legislature. Why 
 any one should or could insist upon 
 this charge it is impossible for me 
 to conceive. The only witness intro- 
 duced was the Hon. Curtis Hancock. 
 He plainly exonerates the Governor, 
 and there is and should be no quea- 
 
SENATE OURNAL. 
 
 899 
 
 tion about this charge being wholly 
 unsupported by the proof, or by any 
 proof whatsoever. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 I want to incorporate in the Jour- 
 nal, as a matter of record, my rea- 
 sons for voting against the above 
 Article of Impeachment. This reason 
 being that I do not believe the of- 
 fense complained of would justify 
 the severe punishment of removal 
 from office, although I feel that the 
 Governor has misused the authority 
 vested in him and has committed a 
 gross error, it hardly justifies pun- 
 ishment above suggested. 
 
 ROBBINS. 
 
 I vote “no” on this article, for the 
 reason that the same is too general, 
 and is in part not sustained, and part 
 covered by and incorporated in other 
 articles. 
 
 HARLEY. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 8, because 
 the charge is vague and indefinite, 
 and for the further reason that the 
 evidence relating to the Governor’^ 
 seeking to have the State Highway 
 Commissioner deposit the funds of 
 that Commission with Temple State 
 Bank, was not conclusive, and there -4 
 fore, the charge is not substant- 
 iated.” 
 
 SMITH. 
 
 “The proof as to Article 8 shows 
 that the Governor requested the 
 Chairman of the Highway Commis- 
 sion to deposit checks in the Templq 
 State Bank for the purpose of col- ; 
 lecting the checks and transferring 
 the money to the Treasurer. In other 
 words, it was only a clearing propo4 
 sition. And for that reason, not in 
 violation of the law. The latter 
 part of the charge complains of his 
 having permitted other departments 
 to deposit money in the Temple State 
 Bank, or with other banks, to the 
 credit of the Temple State Bank. It 
 appears to me that these officers are 
 responsible for their own acts, and 
 if they have acted in violation of the 
 law, that they should be punished 
 therefor, and that the mere permis- 
 sion of the deposit in the Temple 
 State Bank is not sufficient grounds 
 for impeachment, I therefore, vote 
 “no.” 
 
 SUITER. 
 
 Senator Gibson: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Senator Gibson. 
 
 Senator Gibson: I desire to call 
 attention to the fact that in Article 
 9 is incorporated a series of articles 
 that have been voted on, some of 
 them one way and some another, 
 and it is impossible for this Senate 
 to vote on those articles as named 
 there, as I conceive it, as they would 
 like to vote. 
 
 The Chair: Each Senator will 
 have to decide that for himself, the 
 Chair will state. 
 
 Senator Bee: Will the Senator 
 yield? 
 
 Senator Gibson: I yield to the 
 Senator from Bexar. 
 
 Senator Bee: I suggest that on 
 that vote we passed on Section (a) 
 and Section (b) and Section (c), 
 each having been voted on before, 
 either aye or no, and if it had al- 
 ready been voted on before — Sec- 
 tions (a), (b) and (c), a man can’t 
 vote aye or no now because he voted 
 on it before. I suggest, therefore, 
 that we pass on the demurrer and 
 then vote on Section (c). 
 
 Senator Bailey: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: The Senator from 
 DeWitt. 
 
 Senator Bailey: Mr. President, I 
 would suggest to the Chair that they 
 are bound to vote on the articles, 
 and that if any Senator finds him- 
 self in such a position here as having 
 voted for one and against the other, 
 he can keep his record straight by 
 being marked “present and not 
 voting” on this article, all of (a), 
 (b) and (c) having been voted on, 
 some of the Senators voting aye on 
 some of them and no on the other. 
 
 The Chair: Let’s have order. 
 
 Senator Bailey: It seems to be 
 a summary of the three articles and 
 then a conclusion in each, a conclu- 
 sion of law. I think if a Senator 
 does not care to vote on it he can 
 be marked “present.” 
 
 The Chair: That suggestion can 
 be adopted by any Senator who de- 
 sires it. 
 
 Senator Gibson: Does the Chair 
 rule that we shall take this article 
 and vote on it by subdivisions, allow- 
 ing each Senator to use his preroga- 
 tive of being marked “present and 
 not voting” if he so desires? 
 
 The Chair: I think so. I do not 
 think, however, under the rules we 
 can subdivide the article; it is pre- 
 sented as a single article and we will 
 
900 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 have to vote on it as a single article. 
 
 Senator Gibson: Mr. President, I 
 do not desire to take up any time, 
 but wanted to facilitate matters. 
 
 Senator Suiter: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Senator Suiter: 
 
 Senator Suiter: As a matter of 
 information I would lil^e to know if 
 this article 9 involves more than one 
 charge? It seems to me there is 
 only one charge in the article, (a), 
 (b) and (c) as set out in paragraphs 
 are only explanatory of that charge, 
 (b) being a summary of the charge, 
 and for that reason there is only one 
 charge in Article 9. 
 
 The Chair: I will have the Secre- 
 tary read the charge and then each 
 member of the Court must decide the 
 question for himself and vote as his 
 judgment- 
 
 Senator Hopkins: Mr. President, 
 doesn’t the Chair construe this 
 charge to be charging the same of- 
 fenses as were charged in Articles 6 
 and 7, just as you charge the same 
 offenses in an indictment under sev- 
 eral different counts? 
 
 Senator Clark: Mr. President, I 
 move that we proceed to vote. If 
 these Senators don’t know how to 
 vote, if they will ask me I w r ill tell 
 them. (Laughter.) 
 
 Senator Hopkins: There is one 
 additional charge, that is (c), touch- 
 ing the Commissioner of Banking 
 and Insurance, and if there is any 
 way by which we could do so I be- 
 lieve it would be well to eliminate 
 Sections (a) and (b) and then vote 
 upon that article with Section (c) 
 remaining. If we sustain two charges 
 on the same article, won’t we sustain 
 this charge by having already sus- 
 tained Articles 6 and 7? 
 
 The Chair: The Chair does not 
 feel that it is one of his prerogatives 
 to try to explain the charges to the 
 Senators, they all being members of 
 the Court. The Secretary will call 
 the roll. 
 
 The Secretary: I have not read 
 the charge yet. 
 
 The Chair: Read the charge, then. 
 Let’s have attention to the reading 
 of Article 9. 
 
 The Secretary (reading) : “Arti- 
 cle 9. That the said James E. Fer- 
 guson has himself deposited, or 
 caused or permitted to be deposited, 
 funds in banks when the Treasury 
 of the State of Texas was open for 
 business, which funds should have 
 been in the State Treasury. That 
 
 he has used and permitted the use 
 of funds by officers appointed by him 
 for purposes other than the paying 
 of same into the Treasury of this 
 State, said funds being substantially 
 as follows: 
 
 “(a) That about the month of 
 January, 1917, he deposited with 
 the Temple State Bank the sum of 
 $60,000 of funds in the possession 
 of the Secretary of State. 
 
 “(b) That on May 29, 1917, in 
 company with T. H. Heard, president 
 of the Temple State Bank, he per- 
 mitted the deposit of funds in the 
 possession of the Secretary of State 
 to the credit of the Temple State 
 Bank in an amount of $250,000. 
 
 “(c) That he permitted the Com- 
 missioner of the Insurance and 
 Banking Department to deposit funds 
 during the year 1916 with the Tem- 
 ple State Bank in an amount of 
 more than $101,000. 
 
 “(d) That each and all of the 
 above acts were knowingly and will- 
 fully committed by the said James 
 E. Ferguson.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 is: Shall Article 9 be sustained? 
 
 Those of you who find that said 
 Article 9 should be sustained will 
 answer “aye” as your names are 
 called; those who do not so find will 
 answer ‘“no.” The Secretary will 
 call the roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called 
 the roll, the vote being as follows,, 
 to wit) : 
 
 Yeas — 15. 
 
 'ttw •ron' mr ; w 
 
 Alderdice. Lattimore. 
 
 Buchanan of Scurry. McNealus. 
 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Gibson. 
 Henderson. 
 Johnson of Hall. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Nays — 12. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 McCollum. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 Present — Not Voting. 
 
 Bailey. Johnston of Harris. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. Page, 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 901 
 
 The Chair: There being 15 ayes, 
 12 noes, 4 present and not voting, 
 the article is not sustained. 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court.) 
 
 I feel that Article 9 has been dis- 
 posed of by Articles 6 and 7, and that 
 a demurrer should be sustained to 
 subsection (c). 
 
 BEE. 
 
 soever, when as a matter of fact he 
 was indebted to same at that time 
 for more than was authorized by 
 law.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 is: Shall Article 10 be sustained? 
 Those of you who find that said ar- 
 ticle should be sustained will answer 
 “aye” as your names are called; 
 those who fail to so find will answer 
 “no.” The Secretary will call the 
 roll. 
 
 The Secretary thereupon called 
 the roll, the vote being as follows, 
 to wit: 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 9, and on 
 subdivisions (a) and (b) thereof, for 
 the reasons 'already set forth with 
 reference to Articles 6 and 7, and on 
 subdivision (c) for the reason that 
 the proof wholly fails on this subdi- 
 vision. The Governor testified that 
 he did not know until after the de- 
 posit was made by the late Commis- 
 sioner of Insurance and Banking, th© 
 Hon. John S. Patterson, that any de- 
 posit was to be or had been made; 
 that he knew nothing about any ar- 
 rangement about any interest on the 
 deposit, if in fact any such arrange- 
 ment was ever made; that he had no 
 knowledge that said deposit was in 
 contemplation and did not advise or 
 suggest that Mr. Patterson make such 
 deposit. This testimony is not de- 
 nied — not disputed by any witness, 
 and the charge has wholly failed of 
 substantiation. 
 
 , CLARK. 
 
 I .vote no on Article 9 for the 
 reason the charges contained in same 
 are included in Articles 6 and 7. 
 
 FLOYD. 
 
 I vote “no” for the reason that 
 this article is incorporated in other 
 articles. 
 
 HARLEY. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 read Article 10. 
 
 The Secretary (reading): “Arti- 
 cle 10. That on March 3, 1917, he 
 stated in a public speech before the 
 House of Representatives, which 
 body had under consideration a reso- 
 lution to investigate charges of offi- 
 cial misconduct against him (one of 
 said charges being borrowing more 
 money from the Temple State Bank 
 than was authorized by the laws of 
 Texas), that he was not indebted to 
 the said bank in any amount what- 
 
 Yeas — 13. 
 
 Alderdice. Johnson of Hall. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. Latthnore. 
 Buchanan of ScurryMcNealus. 
 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Nays — 18. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 Johnston of Harris. 
 McCollum. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 The Chair: The Senator from 
 Dallas is not in the Chamber. 
 
 Senator Bee: I suggest that we 
 suspend for a minute until he re- 
 turns. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: He can be re- 
 corded when he comes in. 
 
 The Chair: We can record him 
 when he comes in. 
 
 The Secretary: 12 ayes and 18 
 noes, Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: There being 12 ayes 
 and 18 noes, Article 10 is not sus- 
 tained. 
 
 Reason for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court) : 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 10 because 
 it is covered by Articles 3 and 4. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 10 of the im- 
 peachment charges preferred against 
 
902 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 Governor James E. Ferguson, for the 
 reason that the evidence shows that 
 at the time mentioned in said article, 
 to wit: on March 3, 1917, all of the 
 indebtedness of the Governor to the 
 Temple State Bank, had been taken 
 up by the Governor by four notes, 
 each for the sum of $37,500; that 
 one of said notes was a personal 
 note of the Governor and at that time 
 had already been fully paid off; one 
 of said notes was a note of the Bell- 
 Bosque Stock Farm and was not the 
 Governor’s personal obligation; that 
 the other two notes had ben executed 
 by A. F. Ferguson and J. H. Davis, 
 Jr., with collateral attached to se- 
 cure the payment of said notes, and 
 the statements referred to in Article 
 10 of said charges are true, all of 
 which is fully sustained by the entire 
 proof. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 sentatives of the people of Texas an 
 accounting of said $156,500 in cur- 
 rency, which He received during ses- 
 sions of the Legislature or shortly 
 thereafter, and the receipt of such 
 sums in currency, and the failure to 
 account for same, constitutes official 
 misconduct.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 is: Shall Article 11 be sustained? 
 
 Senator McNealus: I wish to state 
 that I was out of the Chamber when 
 the vote was taken — when Article 10 
 was read. 
 
 The Chair: It was agreed that 
 you might have consent to record 
 your vote when you came in. 
 
 Senator McNealus: I desire unan- 
 imous consent to be marked as vot- 
 ing that Article 10 be sustained. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called 
 the roll, the vote being as follows, 
 to wit) : 
 
 I want to incorporate in the Jour- 
 nal, as a matter of record, my rea- 
 sons for voting against the above 
 Article of Impeachment. TlTis reason 
 being that I do not believe the of- 
 fense complained of would justify 
 the severe punishment of removal 
 from office, although I feel that the 
 Governor has misused the authority 
 vested in him and has committed a 
 gross error, it hardly justifies pun- 
 ishment above suggested. 
 
 ROBBINS. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 read Article 11. 
 
 The Secretary (reading): “Arti- 
 cle 11. That in this investigation of 
 James E. Ferguson by the Commit- 
 tee of the Whole House of Repre- 
 sentatives said James E. Ferguson 
 testified that during the Regular 
 Session of the Thirty-fifth Legisla- 
 ture and shortly thereafter he re- 
 ceived from parties certain currency 
 in varying amounts, the total of 
 which was about $156,500. That 
 said transaction is unusual and ques- 
 tionable, and that the said James E. 
 Ferguson when questioned as to who 
 loaned him this money declined to 
 answer, although the officer of the 
 Committee of the Whole appointed 
 to pass on the admissibility of testi- 
 mony ruled that he should answer, 
 and the Committee sustained said 
 ruling. That he is thus not only in 
 contempt of the House and its com- 
 mittee, but he insists that he is not 
 required to give before the repre- 
 
 Yeas — 27. 
 
 Alderdice. Hopkins. 
 
 Bailey. Hudspeth. 
 
 Bee. Johnson of Hall. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. Johnston of Harris. 
 
 Buchanan of ScurryLattimore. 
 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 McCollum. 
 
 McNealus. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Nays — 4. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 The Chair: There being 27 ayes 
 and 4 noes. Article 11 is sustained. 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court) : 
 
 I vote “aye” on Article 11 because 
 as I have heretofore stated sound, 
 public policy and good government 
 demands that the Governor of this 
 State shall not borrow money in 
 large amounts, secure the money in 
 currency in a secret manner and re- 
 fuse to disclose the source thereof. 
 
 BEE. 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 903 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 11 of the im- 
 peachment charges prefered against 
 Governor James E. Ferguson, for the 
 reason that the Governor testified, 
 both in the House of Representatives 
 and before the Senate of Texas sit- 
 ting as a High Court of Impeach- 
 ment, that -the transaction concerning 
 his borrowing the $156,000 was open 
 and above-hoard; an honest day-light 
 transaction between himself and gen- 
 tlemen who were not interested in 
 any way in legislation, departmental 
 matters, or any other like Questions. 
 That he did not obtain said money 
 from the head of any department. 
 Inasmuch as this article does not al- 
 lege any corruption in office, I vote 
 “no,” because this was a private peril 
 sonal transaction of the Governor, 
 proved by him and undisputed by 
 the evidence to have been guiltless of 
 any impropriety of any character 
 whatever. The Governor of Texas 
 has bared his private affairs to the 
 inspection of the public time and 
 again, and the fact that he had given 
 his word that he would not disclose 
 the source from which he borrowed 
 this money, nor the names of those 
 who loaned it to him, is a tribute to 
 his determination to keep his word 
 inviolate. This charge ought not to 
 be sustained, and the House Man- 
 agers have wholly failed to show that 
 it is an impeachable transaction, and 
 have failed even to show that it is 
 an impropriety. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 Reason for voting “no” as I did 
 on the submission of the matter to 
 the Senate by the presiding officer, 
 as to whether or not the Governor 
 should answer the question as to the 
 source from which came the $156,- 
 500: In my judgment, when he re- 
 fused to answer the question, he 
 convicted himself upon the charge 
 embraced in the article covering this 
 matter. For this reason I will be 
 forced to sustain this count. 
 
 HUDSPETH. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: Do you con- 
 sider that it is the same money he 
 is charged with converting in Arti- 
 cle 1? 
 
 Senator Bee: The first is with 
 reference to the Canyon City funds; 
 the other refers to the Adjutant Gen- 
 eral’s fund. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: That is true, 
 but it is the same money; it is the 
 same in one place as in another, ac- 
 cording to the testimony. 
 
 Senator Bee: It is two separate 
 things. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: What is the 
 ruling of the Chair? 
 
 The Chair: Let the article be 
 read. The Chair is of the opinion 
 that it is not the same thing. I don’t 
 know that the Chair should state 
 that, though. 
 
 The Secretary: Which one does 
 he want read? 
 
 The Chair: Read Article 12. 
 
 The Secretary (reading) : “Arti- 
 cle 12. That James E. Ferguson had 
 on deposit during the year 1916 in 
 the American National Bank to his 
 account as Governor certain sums of 
 money belonging to the Adjutant 
 General’s Department of Texas ag- 
 gregating more than $3,000, said 
 funds being the property of the 
 State of Texas, but set aside for that 
 department. That in violation of 
 the statutes of Texas he diverted 
 these funds from their lawful pur- 
 pose and paid same as a portion of 
 the amount for the construction of 
 buildings of the Normal College lo- 
 cated at Canyon City.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 is: Shall Article 12 be sustained? 
 
 Those of you who find that said ar- 
 ticle should be sustained will answer 
 “aye” as your names are called; 
 those who do not so find will answer 
 “no.” The Secretary will call the 
 roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called 
 the roll, the vote being as follows, 
 to wit) : 
 
 Yeas — 27. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: Mr. President, 
 Article 12, it occurs to me, is the 
 exact charge that is embraced in 
 Article 1. Isn’t that a fact? I ask 
 if Article 12 is not the same charge, 
 virtually the same matter, embraced 
 in Article 1. If so, I want to be 
 recorded as present and not voting. 
 
 Senator Bee: Will the Senator 
 yield? 
 
 Alderdice. Floyd. 
 
 Bailey. Gibson. 
 
 Bee. Harley. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. Henderson. 
 Buchanan of ScurryHopkins. 
 
 Caldwell. Hudspeth. 
 
 Collins. Johnson of Hall. 
 
 Dayton. Johnston of Harris. 
 
 Dean. Lattimore. 
 
 Decherd. McCollum. 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 904 
 
 McNealus. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Nays — 4. 
 
 Clark. Parr. 
 
 Hall. Woodward. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: I desire to 
 vote to sustain this charge. 
 
 ( The Chair: Senator Hudspeth 
 votes “aye.” 
 
 Senator Dayton: Mr. President, 
 after reading it, I am mistaken. I 
 vote “aye.” 
 
 The Chair: Senator Dayton votes 
 “aye.” There being 27 ayes and 4 
 noes, Article 12 is sustained. 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court: ) 
 
 I vote “aye” on Article 12 because 
 the evidence develops that the 
 $5600 referred to in Article 1 taken 
 from the Canyon City Fund, was re* 
 placed in part by money belonging 
 to the Adjutant General Fund, and 
 therefore the said Adjutant Gen-r 
 eral’s Fund was diverted in violation 
 of law. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 12 of the im- 
 peachment charges preferred against 
 Governor James E. Fergu$on, for the 
 reason that the sum mentioned in 
 this article being closely connected 
 with the facts concerning the first 
 article of impeachment, and because 
 the facts showing that the Governor 
 has wholly and entirely settled with 
 Acting Governor Hobby for every 
 cent ever turned over to him by 
 the State, and that he never know- 
 ingly used a cent of the State’s 
 money; that he scrupulously spent 
 every cent of the State’s funds 
 turned over to him in an economical 
 business-like manner and way for 
 the purposes for which it was intend- 
 ed. This charge is not in any way or 
 sense sustained by the proof. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 gation of Governor James E. Fergu- 
 son, he was specifically charged with 
 the misapplication of moneys of the 
 State of Texas in the purchase of 
 groceries, feed, automobile tires, gas- 
 oline, etc. The committee appoint- 
 ed by the House of Representatives 
 found that he did so misapply several 
 thousand dollars and converted same 
 to his own use in the purchase of the 
 items above enumerated. That be- 
 fore said committee Governor Fergu- 
 son testified under oath that if the 
 case of Middleton vs. Terrell, Comp- 
 troller, should be decided by the Su- 
 preme Court against him that he 
 would refund to the State of Texas 
 such amounts misappropriated by 
 him in accordance with said decision. 
 The Supreme Court long ago refused; 
 an application for writ of error and 
 overruled a motion for rehearing, 
 thus deciding against him, but James 
 E. Ferguson is still indebted under 
 said decision to the State of Texas 
 for groceries, feed, automobile tires, 
 gasoline, etc., which were for his pri- 
 vate use but which were paid with 
 State funds, and he has failed to pay 
 same in acordance with his oath be- 
 fore said Committee of the House of 
 Representatives. The report of the 
 House Investigating Committee stat- 
 ed that the charge of misapplication 
 of funds should not justify the Ser- 
 ous penalty of impeachment, inas- 
 much as Governor Ferguson had tes- 
 tified that he would promptly pay 
 said amounts to the State, and that 
 in the judgment of the committee 
 this agreement to repay should be 
 considered in connection with the 
 good faith of the Governor. That 
 the said James E. Ferguson was 
 guilty of misapplication of the ap- 
 propriation made by the Legislature 
 for fuel, lights, ice and incidentals, 
 in that he used same in the purchase 
 of groceries, feed, automobile tires, 
 gasoline, etc., for his private use, and 
 that his refusal to repay said funds 
 constitute a continued misapplication 
 of the public funds of Texas.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the ques- 
 tion is: Shall Article 13 be sus- 
 tained? Those of you who believe 
 that said article should be sustained 
 will answer “aye” as your names are 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will, 
 read Article 13. 
 
 The Secretary (reading): “Arti- 
 cle 13. That at the former investi-- 
 
 called; those of you who do not so 
 believe will answer “no.” The Sec- 
 retary will call the roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 905 
 
 the roll, the vote being as follows to 
 wit: ) - 
 
 Yeas — 15. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. Lattimore. 
 Buchanan of Scurry. McNealus. 
 
 Caldwell. Robbins. 
 
 Dean. Smith. 
 
 Decherd. Strickland. 
 
 Floyd. Suiter. 
 
 Johnson of Hall. Westbrook. 
 Johnston of Harris. 
 
 without proof and can not be sus- 
 tained. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 ( 
 
 Mr. President, the facts sustain 
 the charge, but there are some ex- 
 tenuating circumstances in this case. 
 The Legislature made the appropria- 
 tion, and for that reason I do not be- 
 lieve it would be impeachable, and 
 vote “no.” 
 
 COLLINS. 
 
 Nays — 16. 
 
 Alderdice. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 McCollum. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court: ) 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 13 while I 
 believe the Governor ought not to 
 Tiave used the money appropriated 
 by the Legislature for the purchase 
 of groceries and automobile acces- 
 sories, etc., yet the Legislature had 
 appropriated the money and his mis- 
 conduct in my judgment is not suffi- 
 ciently grave to constitute an im- 
 peachable offence. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 13 of the im- 
 peachment charges preferred against 
 Governor James E. Ferguson, for the 
 reason that the Legislature of Texas, 
 by its solemn Act appropriating the 
 sum of money named to pay for just 
 such articles and items as were ex- 
 pended under it, and knowing at the 
 time the appropriation was made the 
 purposes for Which it would be spent. 
 Notwithstanding this, and notwith- 
 standing the fact that the Legislature 
 authorized in the first instance, the 
 expediture of these sums, the Gov- 
 ernor has paid back every cent 
 claimed and still more, even going 
 to the extent of paying for the work- 
 men about the mansion and grounds, 
 a thing never before done, so far as 
 1 know, by any Governor in the his- 
 tory of this State. This charge is 
 
 Mr. President, I desire to say that 
 I will have to vote “no” on this, for 
 the reasons stated by the Senator 
 from Jefferson, although there is one 
 circumstance in the investigation in 
 the House which makes it culpable 
 in my mind. 
 
 GIBSON. 
 
 Mr. President, I think there is 
 evidence of culpability, but on ac- 
 count of the fact that the Legisla- 
 ture made are appropriation there 
 are many extenuating circumstances. 
 
 I have serious doubt as to the crim- 
 inal intent and vote “no.” 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: Mr. President, 
 after reading the demurrers it oc- 
 curs to me that it was by authority 
 of law; the appropriation was passed 
 by the Legislature and I vote “no.” 
 
 The Chair: There being 15 “ayes” 
 and 16 “noes,” Article 13 is not sus- 
 tained. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 read Article 14. t 
 
 The Secretary (reading): “Arti- 
 cle 14. That by an express provi- 
 sion of the Constitution and his oath 
 of office the Governor is bound to 
 enforce all laws of the State of Tex- 
 as. The laws of Texas during the 
 period of his administration express-* 
 ly forbade State banks to lend money 
 in excess of 30 per cent of its capital 
 stock. This was known to the Gov- 
 ernor, yet in violation of this provi- 
 sion of the law he induced the officers 
 of the Temple State Bank to lend to 
 him, James E. Ferguson, an amount 
 far in excess of that authorized by 
 law, which loans were made during 
 the years 1916 and 1917.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the ques- 
 tion is: Shall Article 14 be sus- 
 tained? Those of you who find that 
 said article should be sustained will 
 
906 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 answer “aye’* as your names are 
 
 called; those 
 
 who do not so find will 
 
 answer “no.’ 
 call the roll. 
 
 ’’ The Secretary will 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called 
 the roll, the vote being as follows, to 
 
 wit: ) 
 
 Yeas — 26. 
 
 j 
 
 AlderdiCe. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Johnson of Hall. 
 
 Buchanan of 
 
 Bell. Johnston of Harris. 
 
 Buchanan of Scurry. Lattimore. 
 
 Caldwell. 
 
 McCollum. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 McNealus. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 
 Nays — 5. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Hudspeth 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 The Chair: There being twenty-six 
 ayes and five noes, Article 14 is 
 sustained. 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court: ) 
 
 I vote “Aye” on Article 14 be- 
 cause the laws of Texas expressly 
 forbid the State banks to lend 
 money in excess of thirty per cent 
 of its capital stock. The Governor 
 of Texas should of all men obey 
 the law, and the evidence shows 
 that he induced the Temple State 
 Bank which he dominated to loan 
 him amounts far in excess of the 
 amounts authorized by law. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 14 of the 
 impeachment charges preferred 
 against Governor James E. Ferguson, 
 for the reason that at the time the 
 Governor borrowed money from the 
 Temple State Bank an express agree- 
 ment and understanding was entered 
 into between him and the governing 
 and managing officers of said bank, 
 to the effect that such money was to 
 be used in the purchase of cattle 
 
 and feed to sustain them, and that 
 at any time the bank desired its 
 money, it should have the option and 
 right to demand delivery to it of all 
 of the cattle in the possession of the 
 said James E. Ferguson or that they 
 be speedily turned into cash to pay 
 off the indebtedness of the Governor 
 to the bank; that the cattle were far 
 in excess of the amount so advanced” 
 to buy them and to buy feed for then* 
 and that, therefore, property of act- 
 ual value existed more than sufficient 
 to cover the full amount of said loan, 
 and that such transactions were of 
 the same character and kind as those 
 in the handling of immense quanti- 
 ties of cotton in all parts of this 
 State in the fall of each year, and in 
 the handling of large quantities of 
 grain and other agricultural products 
 during practically all seasons of the 
 year in this State; that such transac- 
 tions are permitted by the banking 
 laws of this State, and are not in 
 violation of the spirit of the banking 
 ’aws. This charge is not sustained 
 '7 the proof. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 read Article 15. Let’s have order. 
 
 The Secretary (Reading) : “Article 
 15. The people of this State have 
 adopted an organic law, the Constitu- 
 tion of Texas, equally binding upon 
 its highest officials and its humblest 
 citizens. Article 7 of that Constitu- 
 tion provides for the maintenance and 
 support of the University of Texas. 
 That provision is a direction given by 
 the people themselves in their most 
 solemn manner to those who repre- 
 sent them in office as to their duties. 
 
 “The Governor has vetoed or at- 
 tempted to veto the entire appropria- 
 tion for the University of Texas ex- 
 cept the salary for one officer, thus, in 
 effect, seeking to set aside that pro- 
 vision of the organic law requiring the 
 support and maintenance of that in- 
 stitution, and to set aside the express 
 will and judgment of the people of 
 Texas. Though he had the legal pow- 
 er to veto, it was his sworn constitu- 
 tional duty to again submit the ques- 
 tion to the Legislature, which he has 
 declared to the people of Texas that 
 he would not do and it was only when 
 a session had been called for his im- 
 peachment and its was apparent that 
 a quorum of the House would attend 
 to consider that question, and as a last 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 907 
 
 extremity, he consented to call a ses- 
 sion of the Legislature and submitted 
 the question of appropriations for the 
 University of Texas.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 is: Shall Article 15 he sustained? 
 
 Those of you who find that said Ar- 
 ticle should be sustained will answer 
 “aye” as your names are called; those 
 who do not so find will answer “no.” 
 The Secretary will call the roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called 
 the roll, the vote being as follows, to 
 wit: ) 
 
 Yeas — 6. 
 
 Buchanan of Scurry. Johnson of Hall. 
 Caldwell. Lattimore. 
 
 Decherd. Strickland. 
 
 Nays — 24. 
 
 Alderdice. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 Johnston of 
 
 McCollum. 
 
 McNealus. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 Harris. 
 
 Present — Not Voting. 
 
 tion of the Governor in vetoing 
 this appropriation. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 15 of the 
 impeachment charges preferred 
 against Governor James E. Ferguson,, 
 for the reason that the Governor did 
 not violate his oath of office or seek 
 to strike down or destroy any con- 
 stitutional provision in this State, in 
 vetoing the University appropriation 
 bill enacted by the Thirty-fifth Leg-* 
 islature. Sections 10 and 11, of Ar- 
 ticle 7 of the Constitution of Texas, 
 in unmistakable language, provides 
 how 'the funds for the support and 
 maintenance of the University shall) 
 be drived. There can be no question 
 about the meaning of these sections. 
 That the appropriation bill, in 
 amount, was excessive I think there 
 can be no dispute. It is a remark- 
 able fact that the appropriation for 
 stenographers at the University now 
 is practically one-third of the appro- 
 priation twenty years ago. The 
 growth of the attendance of students 
 and the activities of the University 
 have in no sense kept pace with the 
 expenditure of the peoples’ money on 
 that institution. In vetoing that bill 
 the Governor was plainly acting in 
 the exercise of a constitutional dis- 
 cretion vested in him by that instru- 
 ment, and can not be impeached for 
 his acts done in these premises. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 The Chair: There being six ayes 
 and twenty-four noes, one present and 
 not voting — does the /Senator from 
 Bell desire to vote? 
 
 Senator Buchanan of Bell: No, sir. 
 
 The Chair: There being six ayes 
 and twenty-four noes and one not vot- 
 ing, the Article is not sustained. 
 
 Reason for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court: ) 
 
 I vote “No” on Article 15 be- 
 cause the Constitution gives the 
 Governor the right of veto, and 
 for a Legislature to make impeach- 
 able the exercise of that right 
 would establish a precedent which 
 would plague people of this State 
 hereafter if differences arose be- 
 tween the Legislature and the Gov- 
 ernor. I utterly disapprove the ac- 
 
 I want to incorporate in the Jour- 
 nal, as a matter of record, my rea- 
 sons for voting against the above 
 Article of Impeachment. This reason- 
 being that I do not believe the of- 
 fense complained of would justify 
 the severe punishment of removal 
 from office, although I feel that the 
 Governor has misused the authority 
 vested in him and has committed a 
 gross error, it hardly justifies pun- 
 ishment above suggested. 
 
 ROBBINS. 
 
 Mr. President, the Governor has a 
 right to veto any measure passed by 
 the Legislature. Being in doubt as to 
 what his course ultimately would have 
 been as to this subject, I vote “no” on 
 this charge. 
 
 ALDERDICE. 
 
 Mr. President, the Governor having 
 called the Legislature to make an ap~ 
 
908 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 propriation after having vetoed the 
 first appropriation, I vote “no” on this 
 Article. 
 
 McNEALUS. 
 
 Senator Floyd: Mr. President, I 
 will send up my reasons. 
 
 The Chair: Send them up. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 read Article 16. 
 
 Mr. President, I think the organic 
 law of this State gives the Governor 
 the right to veto any measure. I think 
 his discretion was abused, but I think 
 it would be a dangerous thing to im- 
 peach a man for doing a thing the 
 Constitution gives him a right to do. 
 Therefore, I vote “no.” 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 I vote “no” on this Article because 
 the Constitution is not clear on this 
 
 P0int ' FLOYD. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 15, with this 
 explanation: That while the vetoing 
 
 of the appropriation for the Univer- 
 sity was unsound in policy and un- 
 warranted in fact, yet the constitu-^ 
 tional right of veto is of such -high 
 importance that any effort to abridge 
 or curtail that right would set a pre- 
 cedent that would be dangerous, and 
 would probably lead to graver dang- 
 ers than the abuse of that right. 
 
 HARLEY. 
 
 Reasons for voting “no” on Article 
 15 of count in impeachment articles: 
 I vote “no” on said article for the 
 reason that I believe that under the 
 Constitution of this State the Gover- 
 nor has the right to veto any bill, 
 while I think that the right was gross- 
 ly abused in this instance and I urged 
 the Governor not to make this fa.al 
 error before he did so. However, 1 
 cannot vote to convict a man for 
 exercising his constitutional right of 
 
 Vet0 ‘ HUDSPETH. 
 
 The Constitution of Texas gives the 
 Governor of this State the veto pow- 
 er. This veto might not have been 
 used discretely, but since in the Gover- 
 nor’s call of the Second Called Session 
 of the Thirty-fifth Legislature he an- 
 nounced his intention to submit as 
 subject matter the question of an ap- 
 propriation for the support and main- 
 tenance of the State University, and 
 since this has been done, and the orig- 
 inal appropriation measure enacted in- 
 to a law, I vote “no.” gMITH. 
 
 The Secretary (Reading) : “Article 
 16. Section 30a of Article 16 of the 
 Constitution of Texas provides for a 
 Board of Regents for the University 
 of Texas, who shall hold office for six 
 years, their terms expiring one-third 
 every two years. The purpose of the 
 people of Texas in the adoption of 
 this provision was to take the Univer- 
 sity of Texas and all other such State 
 institutions from the control of poli- 
 tics, and to keep the different boards 
 from being under the control and 
 domination of whomever might hap- 
 pen to be Governor. By Articles 2639 
 and 2640 of the Revised Civil Statutes 
 of 1911 the Board of Regents are 
 given the management of the affairs 
 of the University of Texas with the 
 discretion to remove members of the 
 faculty when in their judgment It f s 
 deemed best. That it is the duty of 
 the Governor, or any private citizen, 
 to call attention of the Board of Re- 
 gents to any mismanagement or im- 
 proper practices at the University or 
 any other State institutions is readily 
 conceded. The people themselves have 
 given to the Board of Regents by con- 
 stitutional enactment, which has been 
 confirmed by statutory law, tne sole 
 right to judge of the truth of the 
 charges and the punishment to be in- 
 flicted against members of the faculty. 
 The Board of Regents in their sphere 
 are just as supreme as the Governor 
 is in his, each having both constitu- 
 tional and statutory duties to perform, 
 and each being answerable to the peo- 
 ple of Texas. The Governor of Texas 
 not only filed charges against certain 
 members of the faculty, as he had a 
 right to do, but after the members 
 were exonerated by the Board of Re- 
 gents he has sought to have the mem- 
 bers of the faculty expelled from that 
 institution because he desired it. He 
 has thus sought to set aside the Con- 
 stitution and law giving to the Board 
 of Regents the discretion in matters 
 of this kind and assert instead of their 
 legal judgment his own autocratic 
 will.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 is: Shall Article 16 be sustained? 
 
 Those who find that said Article 
 should be sustained will answer “aye” 
 as your names are called; those who 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 909 
 
 do not so find will answer “no.” The 
 Secretary will call the roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called the 
 roll, the vote being as follows, to wit: ) 
 
 Yeas — 22. 
 
 Alderdice. Henderson. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. Johnson of Hall. 
 Buchanan of Scurry. Johnston of Harris. 
 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Lattimore. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 McNealus. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 
 Nays — 9. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 r 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 McCollum. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 
 The Chair: There being twenty- 
 two ayes and nine noes, Article 16 
 is sustained. 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons were 
 sent up by members of the Court:) 
 
 I vote “No” on Article 16 because 
 while I believe the Governor was, 
 wrong in interfering with the man- 
 agement of the University and such 
 interference should be condemned I 
 do not consider it an impeachable 
 offense. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 16 of the im- 
 peachment charges preferred against 
 Governor James E. Ferguson, for the 
 reason that the testimony does not 
 disclose that the Governor sought to 
 remove any of the University Regents 
 save and except Dr. S. J. Jones. He 
 was informed, in an apparently re- 
 liable manner, at least in such a way 
 that no one has appeared to contra- 
 dict it, that Dr. Jones was no longer 
 a resident of the State of Texas, but 
 was living in the State of Virginia, 
 and that he had wholly failed to at- 
 tend the meetings of the Board of 
 Regents. Under the provisions of 
 our law under such circumstances 
 the Governor had the right to remove 
 such regent. The evidence does not 
 show that he removed any other Re- 
 
 gent, and this article is not sustained 
 by the proof. 
 
 The testimony of Mr. Brents, of 
 Sherman, and Mr. Butler, of Clifton 
 — Mr. Brents at present a member 
 of the Board of Regents, and Mr. 
 Butler formerly a member of such 
 Board — was that before they were 
 appointed as members of the Board 
 of Regents of the State University, 
 they fully acquainted the Governor 
 with the fact that they were warm 
 personal friends of Dr. Vinson’s; 
 that they desired him to succeed in 
 the presidency of the University; that 
 they desired to bring about an amic- 
 able understanding between Dr. Vin- 
 son and the Governor; that the Gov- 
 ernor fully understood the closeness 
 of their relations to Dr. Vinson and 
 knowing this, he appointed them. 
 
 It has not been proven, as set out 
 in this article, that the Governor in 
 suggesting the removal of certain 
 members of the faculty was seeking 
 to assert his own autocratic will in- 
 stead of the legal judgment of the 
 Board of Regents, but that he was 
 in the exercise of a duty imposed 
 upon him by Article 24, of Section 
 4 of the Constitution of this State, 
 which makes it his sworn and bound- 
 en duty to inquire into the manage- 
 ment of each and every State institu- 
 tion and concern; to inquire into the 
 expenditure of the State’s money. In 
 this inquiry the Governor discovered 
 that Dr. A. Caswell Ellis was en- 
 gaged in making large sums of money 
 in supervising the erection and con- 
 struction of certain portions of pub- 
 lic school buildings in this State. It 
 is the announced and pronounced 
 purposes of the University of Texas 
 to carry its benefits and advantages 
 to the people. If Dr. Ellis is paid a 
 salary of $3250 per year, as the testi- 
 money shows that he is, and his ex- 
 penses in addition thereto in travel- 
 ing over the State, then the carry- 
 ing of the benefits of the University 
 of Texas to the people ought to be, 
 accomplished without further cost 
 out of their taxes. However, the 
 facts disclose that Dr. Ellis is in 
 the habit of charging one-half of one 
 per cent of the entire cost of school 
 buildings in this State in order to 
 advise the local authorities as to the 
 sanitary construction of same. In 
 addition to this the evidence discloses 
 that Dr. Ellis was engaged in writ- 
 ing a book, or had written a book. 
 
910 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 and at a time just in advance of the 
 State Textbook selection, was quite 
 active in securing endorsements from 
 the people among whom he had been 
 doing this private work, so that he 
 might get, if possible, his book adopt- 
 ted by the State Textbook Board. 
 
 It has never been disputed that 
 Professor James went to Fort Worth 
 to deliver a lecture and took his wife 
 along; that he rendered a bill for 
 the expenses of himself and wife on 
 that trip; that when the auditor re- 
 fused to approve the bill Dr. Battle 
 ordered it changed to read “Doctor 
 James and assistant.” Neither has 
 it been disputed that Dr. Battle mis- 
 led the Legislature and the Governor 
 as to the itemization of the Univer- 
 sity appropriation bill passed by the 
 Thirty-fourth Legislature, and that 
 after promising solemnly to see that 
 the itemization demanded by the 
 State Democratic Convention be rig- 
 idly carried out, he set about to dis- 
 cover ways and means to avoid it 
 and to destroy the itemization made 
 by the Legislature. No justification 
 has been offered for this conduct. No 
 justification has been offered, nor 
 any proof submitted, condoning the 
 offense of charging the young men 
 and young women who attended the 
 University exorbitant prices for the 
 books sold through the Co-operative 
 Association at the University, which 
 has accumulated such a large sum of 
 money that it has built a large and 
 commodious brick building in which 
 to carry on its further activities. No 
 denial has been made that the books 
 there sold are sold at a very large 
 profit to the men who wrote them, 
 and these books in many instances 
 being written by the professors of 
 the University and out of the writing 
 of which they are continuously and 
 constantly deriving a very large 
 profit. 
 
 The only witness put on the stand 
 by the House Managers, as to any of 
 these matters, was Dr. Vinson, presi- 
 dent of the University. He frankly 
 admitted on the stand that he knew 
 nothing about any of these practices 
 save and except such as he had dis- 
 covered by talking with other people;, 
 that as a personal matter he knew 
 nothing about it. Neither Dr. A. 
 Caswell Ellis, Professor James, Dr. 
 Mather, Dr. W. H. Mayes, the head 
 of the School of Journalism, nor any 
 of the others about whom sugges- 
 
 tions were made by the Governor, 
 ever apeared on the witness stand 
 or elsewhere to deny a single charge 
 made against them. This is more 
 than significant, it in effect becomes 
 a confession of guilt and an admis- 
 sion of the truth of the charges made 
 against them. There has been no- 
 evidence proving this charge. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 Mr. President, believing that the 
 Governor transcended his constitu- 
 tional and statutory authority in in- 
 termeddling with the Board of Re- 
 gents, I 1 vote “aye.” 
 
 COLLINS. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 read Article 17. Mr. Sergeant-at-Arms, 
 let’s have order, please. 
 
 The Secretary (Reading) : “Ar- 
 
 ticle 17. Article 6027 of the Revised 
 Civil Statutes of 1911 provides for the 
 removal of members of the Board of 
 Regents (among other officials) for 
 ‘good and sufficient cause.’ The Gov- 
 ernor has sought to remove members 
 of the Board of Regents without such 
 cause, has demanded resignations of 
 others without reason, simply and 
 only because he could not dictate to 
 them as to how they should cast their 
 votes in reference to matters arising 
 before them. Such conduct was a clear 
 violation of the law, and would serve 
 to make inoperative the provision of 
 the Constitution providing for six- 
 year terms of office.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question* 
 is? Shall Article 17 be sustained 
 Those who find that said Article should 
 be sustained will answer “aye” as 
 your names are called; those Vho fail 
 to so find will answer “no.” The Sec- 
 retary will call the roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called the 
 roll, the vote being as follows, to wit: ) 
 
 Yeas — 22. 
 
 Alderdice. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. 
 Buchanan of Scurry 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Henderson. 
 Johnson of Hall. 
 Johnston of Harris. 
 .Lattimore. 
 McNealus. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 911 
 
 Nays — 8. 
 
 Bailey. Hudspeth. 
 
 Clark. McCollum. 
 
 Hall. Parr. 
 
 Hopkins. Woodward. 
 
 Present — Not Voting. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Reason for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court: ) 
 
 I vote “Aye” on Article 17 be- 
 cause I do not believe in the first 
 place the Governor has any power 
 to remove members of the Board of 
 Regents of the University and be- 
 cause I believe that he wrongfully 
 exercised the power of removal and 
 further appointed members of the 
 Board of Regents for the purpose of 
 placing the Board of Regents un- 
 der his control in violation of the 
 Constitution and the laws. The 
 University of Texas is the just pride 
 of the people of this State and its 
 welfare and prosperity carries edu- 
 cation to the young men and young 
 women of this State who are not 
 able to attend Eastern colleges. 
 The University is the peer of any 
 educational institution in the United 
 States and its Board of Regents 
 should be left uninfluenced by any 
 consideration other than its suc- 
 cess. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 17 of the 
 articles of impeachment preferred 
 against the Governor, for the same 
 reasons as set out with reference to 
 Article 16. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 Mr. President, the Attorney Gen- 
 eral of this State has held that tne 
 power of removal -was not vested in 
 the Governor in this instance, and I 
 vote “aye.” 
 
 DAYTON. 
 
 Mr. President, there being a plain 
 statute which gives the Governor of 
 the State the right to remove officers, 
 I vote “no.” 
 
 HUDSPETH. 
 
 Mr. President, there being a statute 
 which gives the Governor of the State 
 
 for good and sufficient cause power to 
 remove officers, in my opinion, under 
 that statute, he had a right to remove 
 them for sufficient cause, but do not 
 believe the record shows that there 
 was cause, and therefore I vote “aye.” 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 The Chair: The Senator from 
 Wharton votes “no.” There being 
 twenty-two ayes and eight noes, and 
 one present and not voting, Article 
 17 is sustained. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 read Article 18. 
 
 The Secretary (Reading) : “Article 
 18. The Governor of Texas has in 
 public speech and published writing 
 declared to the people of Texas that 
 the faculty of the University are graft- 
 ers and corruptionists, that they are 
 liars, and that they are disloyal to 
 their government. ’ These are most 
 serious charges. He made them first 
 before the Legislature convened m 
 January, 1917. The members of the 
 faculty, in justice to themselves, to 
 the institution which they served, and 
 to the people of Texas, whose money 
 supported and maintained that insti- 
 tution, applied to the Senate of Texas 
 for a full and fair investigation. 
 They soughjt in every way possible 
 that the people of Texas might know 
 every fact and circumstance connected 
 with the management of the Univer- 
 sity of Texas. James E. Ferguson op- 
 posed that investigation and on the 
 urging of his friends in the Senate that 
 the controversy was ended, and that 
 the charges would not be repeated, 
 there was adopted the Dayton resolu- 
 tion by the Senate of Texas, which was 
 for the purpose of settling the con- 
 troversy. After the Legislature had 
 adjourned and when investigation was 
 no longer possible by the representa- 
 tives of the people, the Governor 
 again repeated the charges, becoming 
 more and more vehemenent. If he 
 knew the charges to be true, it be 
 came his sworn duty to cause the par- 
 ties involved to be prosecuted. If he 
 did not know them to be true (and the 
 Board of Regents, after a fair hearing 
 found that they were not true), he is 
 guilty of criminal libel and slander 
 against the fair name of Texas and 
 one of its most cherished institutions.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 is Shall Article 18 be sustained? 
 Those who find that said article should 
 be sustained will answer “aye” as 
 
912 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 your names are called; those who do 
 not so find, or fail to' so find, will 
 answer “no.” The Secretary will call 
 the roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called the 
 roll, the vote being as follows, to wit: ) 
 
 Yeas — 9. 
 
 Buchanan of Scurry. Johnson of Hall. 
 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Lattimore. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 McNealus. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Nays — 20. 
 
 Alderdice. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Johnston of Harris. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 McCollum. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 Present — Not Voting. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell.Dayton. 
 
 The Chair: There being 9 "ayes,” 
 20 "noes,” two present and not vot- 
 ing, the article is not sustained. 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 with the Governor, to make demands 
 concerning the University appropria- 
 tion bill, that what is called the 
 Dayton Resolution had been fully 
 lived up to and observed by the Gov- 
 ernor; that this constituted a new 
 offense and a subject not in contem- 
 plation of the Dayton Resolution, 
 and one which was of necessity un- 
 known to the authors and propo- 
 nents of the Dayton Resolution. The 
 proof shows that the president of the 
 University permitted the students to 
 assemble to pass resolutions on the 
 date mentioned. Dr. Vinson stated 
 he did not know that they were go- 
 ing to parade down town, but that ifi 
 he had known of it he could not have 
 stopped it. But, it is claimed by 
 Counsel for the House Managers that 
 Dr. Vinson did compel, in the Daily 
 Texan, a newspaper published by the 
 students of the University, an 
 apology and retraction of certain 
 insulting comments concerning the 
 fact that some of those living in the 
 University section had voted for a 
 negro Governor of the State of Texas 
 at the November election in 1916 in 
 preference to Governor Ferguson. 
 It seems to me that if in the one in- 
 stance his power was sufficient to 
 compel a retraction of such a state- 
 ment, in the other & ought to have 
 been sufficient to prevent a manifes- 
 tation so lawless in character and so 
 needless as this one was. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Courtff ) 
 
 I vote "No” on Article 18. The 
 Governor is unjustified in either 
 public speech or writings attacking 
 the character of men and making 
 charges against them. I believe that 
 the personnel of the members of the 
 University Faculty is as high as that 
 of any corresponding institution. 
 However, the statements were made 
 in anger and controversy and how- 
 ever reprehensible in my judgment 
 are not impeachable. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote "no” on Article 18 of the 
 impeachment charges preferred 
 against Jovernor James E. Ferguson, 
 for the reason that the testimony of 
 the Governor on the stand fully dis- 
 closes that up to the time of the pa- 
 rade of the students when they 
 marched to the Capitol where the 
 Board of Regents were in conference 
 
 This article is not sustained by the 
 proof. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 I want to incorporate in the Jour- 
 nal, as a matter of record, my rea- 
 sons for voting against' the above 
 Article of Impeachment. This reason 
 being that I do not believe the of- 
 fense complained of would justify 
 the severe punishment of removal 
 from office, although I feel that the 
 Governor has misused the authority 
 vested in him and has committed a 
 gross error, it hardly justifies pun- 
 ishment above suggested. 
 
 ROBBINS. 
 
 Mr. President, I regard the conduct 
 of the Governor as set out in this ar- 
 ticle as highly improper, but do not 
 believe that the article contains im- 
 peachable matter and therefore vote 
 “no.” 
 
 ALDERDICE. 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 913 
 
 Mr. President, I think the facts 
 sustain the article, but I believe it is 
 demurrable, and therefore I shall 
 have to vote “no.” 
 
 Mr. President, believing that this 
 is all wrong on both sides, that it 
 grew out of personal matters between 
 some of the members of the faculty 
 and the Governor, I vote “no.” 
 
 GIBSON. 
 
 is: Shall Article 19 be sustained? 
 Those of you who find that said ar- 
 ticle should be sustained will answer 
 “aye” as your names are called; 
 those of you who fail to so find will 
 answer “no.” The Secretary will 
 call the roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called 
 the roll, the vote being as follows, 
 to wit:) 
 
 Mr. President, believing that we 
 can not and should not impeach any 
 one for statements made in a public 
 address, I vote “no.” 
 
 HUDSPETH. 
 
 Mr. President, believing that, 
 granting all the facts to be true, 
 they do not constitute impeachable 
 matter, I vote to sustain the remur- 
 rer. I think the conduct of the Gov- 
 ernor under the circumstances was 
 improper. Nevertheless, he was en- 
 gaged at the time in political debate, 
 and while I do not believe the state- 
 ments he made were justified by 
 facts, I vote “no.” 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Charge 18 because 
 I don’t believe it is an impeachable 
 offense, though it is proven. I here- 
 by sustain demurrer to this charge. 
 
 STRICKLAND. 
 
 Yeas — 21. 
 
 Bee. Johnson of Hall. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. Johnston of Harris. 
 Buchanan of Scurry.Lattimore. 
 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 McNealus. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Nays — 10. 
 
 Alderdice. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 McCollum. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 The Chair: There being 21 ayes 
 and 10 noes, the Article is sustained. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 read Article 19. 
 
 The Secretary (reading): “Arti- 
 cle 19. The Governor of Texas has 
 sought to use the power of his office 
 to control members of the Board of 
 Regents. The chairman of the Board 
 of Regents had become surety on a 
 bail bond, the case pending in Jones 
 County, Texas. The defendant es- 
 caped and judgment was secured on 
 said bond in the sum of $5000 
 against the principal and sureties, 
 one of the sureties being Wilbur P. 
 Allen, chairman of the Board of Re- 
 gents of the University of Texas. He 
 applied to the Governor of Texas for 
 tbe remission of the judgment, which 
 he would have had to pay, and with- 
 out good reason but only to influence 
 his action as a member of the Board 
 of Regents, James E. Ferguson as 
 Governor remitted the forfeiture of 
 $5000, which, except for such action 
 of James E. Ferguson, would have 
 belonged to the people of Texas.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 
 Reason for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court: ) 
 
 I vote “Aye” on Article 19 be- 
 cause I cannot believe that the for- 
 feiture against Wilbur P. Allen 
 would have been remitted except 
 for the purpose of controlling his 
 action on the Board of Regents. 
 Judge Fiset’s statement establishes 
 the fact that Mr. Allen thought very 
 highly of Dr. Vinson until the for- 
 feiture was remitted and then Dr. 
 Vinson was a failure. The circum- 
 stances sustained the belief that 
 this forfeiture was remitted for a 
 purpose. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 19 of the 
 impeachment charges preferred 
 against the Governor, for the reason 
 that the proof does not show that the 
 remission of the forfeiture was made 
 to Wilbur P. Allen for any improper 
 
914 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 purpose whatever. In fact the evi- 
 dence wholly disproves this charge. 
 Evidence was offered by the House 
 Managers to show that Wilbur P. 
 Allen changed his position with ref- 
 erence to Dr. Vinson’s fitness for the* 
 presidency of the University of Texas 
 immediately thereafter, but Dr. Vin- 
 son himself testified that in August,, 
 long after the remission of this for- 
 feiture was made, Wilbur P. Allen 
 was more enthusiastic over his qual- 
 ifications for the presidency than he 
 ever had been. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 Mr. President, it being inconceiv- 
 able to me why Mr. Allen should have 
 been appointed except for one rea- 
 son, and that is that he could be 
 used, and in view of his statement to 
 Mr. Fiset, and believing that he was 
 used, I vote “aye.” 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 read Article 20. 
 
 The Secretary (reading): “Arti- 
 cle 20. That the said James E. 
 Ferguson has sought to improperly 
 influence the courts of Texas in mat- 
 ters in which he had a personal 
 interest, first: 
 
 (a) After he had received from 
 the Thirty-fifth Legislature at itls 
 Regular Session a bill passed by that 
 Legislature for the increase of the 
 salaries of certain judges, among 
 others being those of the judges of 
 the Supreme Court of Texas, he 
 wrote them a letter calling their at- 
 tention to certain provisions of the 
 Constitution of Texas, and after they 
 had ruled against him, vetoed the 
 bill and gave as one of his reasons 
 the fact that that court had allowed 
 him no more than $4,000 salary. 
 
 (b) That while the case of Mad- 
 dox vs. Dayton Lumber Company 
 was pending in the Court of Civil 
 Appeals at Beaumont, and after a 
 motion for rehearing had been over- 
 ruled, and in a case in which the 
 Governor was a party, and the de- 
 cision of said court being against 
 him and his associates, he wrote to 
 one of the members of that court 
 who had asked an endorsement by 
 him, declining to endorse him, and 
 bitterly criticising the decision of 
 that court in that case, and mailed 
 copies of the letter to the other 
 members of that court. That within 
 a few days thereafter his attorneys 
 
 filed a second motion for rehearing.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 is: Shall Article 20 be sustained? 
 
 Those of you who find that said ar- 
 ticle should be sustained will answer 
 “aye” as your names are called; 
 those who fail to so find will answer 
 “no.” The Secretary will call the 
 roll. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called 
 the roll, the vote being as follows, 
 to wit) : 
 
 Yeas — 16. 
 
 Alderdice. ' Johnston of Harris. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. Lattimore. 
 Buchanan of Scurry.McNealus. 
 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 
 Nays — 15. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 Johnson of Hall. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 McCollum. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 
 The Chair: There being 16 ayes 
 and 15 noes, the article is not sus- 
 tained. 
 
 r 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court) : 
 
 I vote *‘No” f on Article 20. 
 While I condemn the action of the 
 Governor in writing th,e letters 
 complained of to the Supreme Court 
 and the Court of Civil Appeals at 
 Beaumont, yet standing alone I do 
 not believe such action is impeach- 
 able. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 20 of the im- 
 peachment charges preferred against 
 Governor James E. Ferguson, for the 
 reason that in writing the letters that 
 the Governor did write he was acting 
 in the exercise of his rights. The 
 Supreme Court of this State is not 
 so distant from the people that they 
 can not receive letters and sugges- 
 tions about authorities and provisions* 
 of the Constitution in cases which 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 915 
 
 they have under consideration. This 
 charge is wholly disproved. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 $ 
 
 Believing as I do that meddling 
 with the courts is the most repre- 
 hensible conduct that a chief execu- 
 tive could be guilty of, I vote “aye.” 
 
 COLLINS. 
 
 Believing that the courts can al- 
 ways take care of themselves and 
 believing that any person has a right 
 to write to the courts of this State, 
 I vote “no.” 
 
 DAYTON. 
 
 I desire to state that I believe that 
 any citizen of the State, having a 
 suit in court, even without the inter- 
 vention of his attorney, has a right 
 to write to the court, but do not 
 believe that the Governor, while his 
 cdse was pending before the Supreme 
 Court, should write any such letter, 
 which leads me to believe it was an 
 attempt to influence them. I say 
 frankly the same thing in regard to 
 the case in the Court of Civil Ap- 
 peals. I think the courts of this 
 State should be held aloof from 
 matters of this kind. The chief ex- 
 ecutive should not infringe upon the 
 prerogatives of the courts. I regard 
 it as a dangerous thing, and vote 
 “aye.” 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 “I vote “no” on charge 20. I 
 think the Governor’s conduct highly 
 improper, but not a matter for which 
 he should be impeached. 
 
 STRICKLAND. 
 
 The Chair: The Secretary will 
 read Article* T 21. 
 
 The Secretary (reading): “Arti- 
 cle 21. That during the session of 
 the Thirty-fifth Legislature James E. 
 Eerguson, as Governor of Texas, sub- 
 mitted to the Senate of Texas the 
 nomination of C. W. Woodman for 
 confirmation as Labor Commissioner. 
 The Senate of Texas refused to con- 
 firm the nomination. That the Gov- 
 ernor then submitted to the Senate 
 of Texas the name of Frank Swor, 
 deputy under C. W. Woodman, which 
 nomination was confirmed by the 
 Senate. But that he has failed and 
 refused to qualify, and more than a 
 reasonable time has elapsed since his 
 appointment, but he has continued 
 to a^ct as deputy, and the said C. W. 
 
 Woodman has continued to act as 
 Commissioner. And knowing these 
 facts, Governor Ferguson has failed 
 and refused to make an appointment, 
 and C. W. Woodman, although con- 
 firmation was refused him by the 
 Senate of Texas many months ago, 
 continued to hold the office and draw 
 the pay. That it was the duty of 
 the Governor, when the Senate re- 
 fused to confirm C. W. Woodman, 
 to make another nomination, and in 
 case the nominee refused to qualify, 
 that it was his duty to make another 
 appointment; but that he has failed 
 and refused to do so in defiance of 
 the Constitution of Texas and his 
 oath of office.” 
 
 The Chair: Senators, the question 
 is: Shall Article 21 be sustained? 
 
 Those of you who find that said ar- 
 ticle should be sustained will answer 
 “aye” as your names are called; 
 those who do not so find will answer 
 “no.” The Secretary will call the 
 roll. 
 
 Senator Bee: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Senator Bee. 
 
 Senator Bee: I think it might be 
 proper at this time for the Chair to 
 admonish those in the Chamber to 
 remain quiet until the Senate fin- 
 ishes. 
 
 The Chair: The Chair endorses 
 the suggestion made by Senator Bee, 
 and we admonish all in the Chamber 
 and the galleries to be quiet until 
 we finish the present work. 
 
 (The Secretary thereupon called 
 the roll, the vote being as follows, 
 to wit) : 
 
 Yeas — 2. 
 
 Buchanan of Bell. McNealus. 
 
 Nays — 29. 
 
 Alderdice. 
 
 Hopkins. 
 
 Bailey. 
 
 Hudspeth. 
 
 Bee. 
 
 Johnson of Hall. 
 
 Buchanan of Scurr 
 
 y. Johnston of Harris. 
 
 Caldwell. 
 
 Lattimore. 
 
 Clark. 
 
 McCollum. 
 
 Collins. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Dayton. 
 
 Parr. 
 
 Dean. 
 
 Robbins. 
 
 Decherd. 
 
 Smith. 
 
 Floyd. 
 
 Strickland. 
 
 Gibson. 
 
 Suiter. 
 
 Hall. 
 
 Westbrook. 
 
 Harley. 
 
 Henderson. 
 
 Woodward. 
 
916 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 The Chair: There being 2 ayes 
 and 29 noes, the article is not sus- 
 tained. 
 
 Reasons for Vote. 
 
 (The following written reasons 
 were sent up by members of the 
 Court) : 
 
 I do not consider there is any merit 
 in Article 21. While Mr. Woodman, 
 ought to have vacated the office 
 when Mr. Swor was removed, 
 there is no evidence involved in the 
 Governor. 
 
 BEE. 
 
 I vote “no” on Article 21 of the im- 
 peachment charges preferred against, 
 Governor James E. Ferguson, for the 
 reason that Frank Swor did not qual- 
 ify in order to permit C. W. Wood- 
 man to carry out some matters of 
 policy in the office. When those mat- 
 ters were arranged Swor did qualify. 
 This charge is wholly unsustained. 
 
 CLARK. 
 
 I want to incorporate in the Jour- 
 nal, as a matter of record, my rea- 
 sons for voting against the above 
 Article of Impeachment. This reason 
 being that I do not believe the of- 
 fense complained of would justify 
 the severe punishment of removal 
 from office, although I feel that the 
 Governor has misused the authority 
 vested in him and has committed a 
 gross error, it hardly Justifies pun- 
 ishment above suggested. 
 
 ROBBINS. 
 
 Believing that the part of this 
 charge as to the Governor’s action 
 is not impeachable, I therefore vote 
 “no.” 
 
 SUITER. 
 
 I vote to sustain a demurrer to 
 charge 21, not believing it an im- 
 peachable offense if proven. 
 
 STRICKLAND. 
 
 ( Senator McCollum sent up the 
 following reasons for his votes on all 
 the articles) : 
 
 In reaching conclusions, as well as 
 rendering a verdict on the issues 
 involved in the case now at its con- 
 clusion, it is deemed in order to pre- 
 sent some statements to the voters 
 of the Eleventh Senatorial District 
 and to the people of the State as 
 well, for while a State Senator’s im- 
 
 mediate duty is to his constituency, 
 yet there are instances where the 
 scope of that duty goes beyond local 
 lines and is for the people at large, 
 notably in an instance where there 
 is a challenge of conscience and duty 
 as is the case now. 
 
 It is known to many that I en- 
 tered upon my duty as a member of 
 the Court of Impeachment with dis- 
 tinctive friendly 1 feeling toward the 
 Respondent and with earnest desire 
 to see him have the fairest trial, pos- 
 sible, and cherishing the hope that 
 the developments of that trial would 
 justify acquittal on all tho counts. 
 That statement may be made fully 
 and freely, even though it was 
 known to many that despite the sen- 
 timent of friendship and sympathy 
 here alluded to I did not agree with 
 the Respondent as to the veto of the 
 University appropriation, to which 
 feature of the case I shall make brief 
 reference later on. All right think- 
 ing men who have ever had the ex- 
 perience of friendships that are 
 pleasant and appreciated can readily 
 understand the emotions that must 
 have developed for more than one 
 Senator no less than myself while 
 sitting as a member of this Court. 
 If reference is made here and now 
 to these phases of the matter, it is 
 simply to emphasize the situation 
 that ensued while listening to the 
 testimony, and in now reaching a 
 conclusion as to a verdict all men 
 who have the right concepts of what 
 not only personal friendship means, 
 but the force of association with men 
 in politics and in legislation, can 
 analyze and understand this situa- 
 tion. It would have been one of the 
 most grateful experiences of life to 
 feel warranted at the close of this 
 case, that is destined to be historical 
 and far-reaching, and I hope whole- 
 some in its influences and tendencies, 
 to join in a verdict of acquittal on 
 all the counts. As I understand the 
 case now and in the light of con- 
 science and judgment no less than 
 duty, it is not my privilege to render 
 such a verdict. 
 
 “The issues and the principles that 
 are involved in this case are to my 
 mind among the gravest and most 
 important that have been passed on, 
 by any body of Texans, whether sit- 
 ting as jurors in our courts or as 
 members of legislative courts. They 
 involve civic duty and responsibility 
 and they touch the principle of truth 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 917 
 
 and righteousness with a force that 
 is not to be ignored. It has been tho 
 good fortune and the pride of our 
 people that for so many years with 
 one nolitical party dominant during 
 all those years in the conduct and 
 control of State affairs; with that, 
 same political dominance and control 
 going out into all the avenues of civic 
 life, finding expression in all phases 
 of local government, that that party 
 (of which I have been privileged to 
 be an active even if a modest mem- 
 ber) has given State and people hon- 
 est and efficient government and ad- 
 ministration of public affairs. It 
 has been our pride and good fortune 
 that during all these years no in- 
 stance, at least of material nature, 
 has developed to challenge our boast, 
 or to mar the prestige of the political 
 element exercising control. Not un- 
 til now has an instance arisen that 
 compels us to give pause, to take cog- 
 nizance of the gravity of the issues 
 and decide on the measure and char- 
 acter of duty. It fell to the Senate 
 of Texas, it was the fate cf the men 
 who compose that body, to face and 
 deal with this issue and all that it 
 involves, taking into account the cost 
 and the culpability if there shall be 
 failure or lack of readiness to meet 
 duty as we see it. As the case ap- 
 peals to and commands my judgment, 
 there can be no doubt as to the re- 
 sponsibility and the duty of the Sen- 
 ate, and so believing I have voted 
 to sustain more than one of the 
 charges. In thus' doing, I am trying 
 to meet the full measure of responsi- 
 bility to conscience, to judgment and 
 to the interests of my people and 
 State. I have refrained, and as I be- 
 lieve with good reason, from any ef-4 
 fort to discuss the legal questions 
 that find place in this case. There 
 are able lawyers in the Senate who, 
 it may be believed, are in all respects 
 equipped t$ deal with these features 
 of the matter, and to an extent that 
 will no doubt meet the views of that 
 element of our citizenship that at- 
 taches so much weight to phases of 
 that nature. It has been my duty to 
 consider in most careful manner 
 what may be called the moral as- 
 pects of the case, issues that chal- 
 lenge the interest and attention of 
 our people, and that enter into every 
 phase of this most notable and de- 
 plorable episode. In considering 
 these issues and what they may or 
 
 do involve, one is bound to givq 
 thought to the needs and interests 
 of tomorrow as well as of today. If, 
 there is any lesson in this case its 
 influences and its benefits should be 
 as much for those who come after 
 us as for those who are here now. 
 Every juror, weighing and consider- 
 ing these questions, must have felt 
 the force of this phase of the matter. 
 The trial and its developments 
 brought opportunity and duty to de- 
 clare to our own people and to the 
 people of other commonwealths that 
 in our state we feel more than ever 
 that public office, is of the highest 
 import and calls for performance of 
 complete character, in line with the 
 standards that we have set for civic 
 and individual righteousness. It 
 will be, or .it should be known from 
 this day, and let us hope for all time, 
 that the man who seeks and who se*i 
 cures office in Texas is to measure 
 up to and be judged by standards 
 here alluded to — honest and faithful 
 performance of public duty, mindful 
 at all times and in all emergencies of 
 the spirit and the letter of the Con- 
 stitution anV the laws that are based 
 on that instrument. ' It is not too 
 much to hope that this episode in our 
 history, so deplorable and even tragic 
 in many of its features, must have 
 the wholesome and enduring in- 
 fluence here alluded to. If that shall 
 be the outcome, it may be believed 
 that every Senator who has had part 
 in rendering this judgment, no mat- 
 ter how much of regret he may have 
 felt at the necessity for such a duty, 
 will feel that his verdict will have 
 valuable fruitage for the people of 
 this day and time, for those who 
 come after us and for our State and 
 institutions. Those who know me 
 best at my home and in the district 
 I have the honor to represent, will 
 not need to be told that in reaching 
 these conclusions there has been no 
 recogntion of any influence of ex- 
 traneous nature, this despite the ef- 
 forts that were made along that line, 
 and which I have relegated to for- 
 getfulness believing that in the main 
 they were the results of thoughtless- 
 ness more than of intent that would 
 give offense. I had no ambition, nor 
 incentive or purpose save to reach an 
 honest judgment. It is well known 
 that in my long life in the district 
 I have sought public life or office so 
 rarely that my life has been excep- 
 
918 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 tional in that respect, and therefore 
 there is no end of political or per- 
 sonal nature to be achieved, nor have 
 I allowed myself to think for one 
 moment of what any man, any ele- 
 ment of our citizenship may think 
 or say of the course pursued. The 
 only aspiration has been to do right, 
 to follow duty as it manifested for 
 me, and in thus doing to serve the 
 best interests of State, of people and 
 of society — and the result, whatever 
 they may be, are a matter of abso- 
 lutely no moment so far as they may 
 or do touch me personally. Natur- 
 ally there is some hope, that the peo- 
 ple who have honored me by send- 
 ing me to the Texas Senate may be 
 able to approve, and in all sincerity, 
 the course pursued. But if it is 
 otherwise, so be it. The verdict and 
 the lesson it holds and will hold are 
 essential, as I honestly believe, for 
 maintenance of the real interests of 
 our people and State, no less than the 
 prestige of the commonwealth. 
 
 “There is no satisfaction, no grat- 
 ification, in seeing any person sub- 
 jected to suffering or humiliation, 
 much less a friend, and I am not 
 ashamed in closing this statement 
 to give utterance to my profound 
 sympathy for the man who has thus 
 been made a means to an end that is 
 justified on grounds of highest pub- 
 iic policy and right thinking, and my 
 one regret in rendering the verdict 
 is that its terms can not be made, as 
 to some important phases, less rig- 
 orous than the law seems to permit, 
 for I have no desire to see the State 
 or society exact more from the Re- 
 spondent than may seem just and 
 right, all the circumstances con-1 
 sidered.” 
 
 The Chair: That concludes the 
 articles. What is the pleasure of the 
 Court? 
 
 Senator Bailey: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: The Senator from 
 DeWitt. 
 
 Senator Bailey: I desire to send 
 up the following simple resolution, 
 and ask that it be read in the Court 
 of Impeachment, and that it be report- 
 ed to the Senate for such action as 
 the Senate may see fit to take upon 
 it, and that it lie upon the table of 
 the Senate — of the Secretary of the 
 Senate subject to be called up at the 
 pleasure of the Senate. 
 
 The Chair: The Senator from 
 DeWitt sends up the following simple 
 
 resolution. Let the resolution be read. 
 
 The Secretary (Reading): “Court 
 Resolution No. 1. Resolved, that on 
 Tuesday, September 24, 1917, at 12 
 o’clock m., the Senate of Texas, sitting 
 as a Court of Impeachment, proceed to 
 pronounce judgment in the matter of 
 the impeachment of James E. Fergu- 
 son, Respondent, on such of the 
 charges of impeachment preferred 
 against him by the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, as have been sustained by 
 the Senate, sitting as a Court of Im- 
 peachment, and that the Committee on 
 Civil Jurisprudence of the Senate, pre- 
 pare said judgment and submit the 
 same to the Senate on Monday, Sep- 
 tember 23, 1917, after the morning 
 call is concluded.” 
 
 BAILEY. 
 
 Senator Decherd: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: Senator Decherd. 
 
 Senator Decherd: I wish .to correct 
 an error there in the dates. Monday 
 will be the 24th instead of the 23rd, 
 and Tuesday will be the 25th. 
 
 The Chair: Tuesday would be the 
 25th, it s§ems, Senator. 
 
 Senator Bailey: Well, I ask, sir, 
 to be allowed to change that. 
 
 Senator McNealus: Mr. President. 
 
 The Chair: The Senator from Dal- 
 las. 
 
 Senator McNealus: May I ask a 
 point of information? 
 
 The Chair: State the point. 
 
 Senator McNealus: In making this 
 resolution, do I understand that 
 is nothing in this resolution which 
 could be construed as deciding the 
 judgment to be entered by the Court, 
 in so far as sustaining the articles is 
 concerned 
 
 The Chair: No, the Court has al- 
 ready sustained the articles. 
 
 Senator McNealus: The Chair 
 
 rules now that the articles have been 
 sustained? 
 
 The Chair: The Chair announced, 
 as each article was sustained, that it 
 was sustained, as the votes were 
 taken. 
 
 Senator McNealus: Then is that 
 understood? 
 
 The Chair: The Chair does not 
 conceive that it is necessary to an- 
 nounce again the result of the votes 
 on the several articles. The results 
 were announced as each article was 
 voted on. 
 
 Senator McNealus: What I wish to 
 know from the Chair is this, — if 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 919 
 
 James E. Ferguson is now in the 
 attitude of having been officially and 
 judicially impeached. 
 
 The Chair: The House presented 
 articles of impeachment, and the Sen- 
 ate has sustained ten of the articles 
 of impeachment, and that has already 
 been declared by the Chair. 
 
 Senator McNealus: That means 
 conviction, does it? 
 
 The Chair: Yes, sir, it does so in 
 the opinion of the Chair. The Sena- 
 tor from DeWitt asks that this reso- 
 lution lie on the table or be reported 
 to the Senate for action. 
 
 Senator Lattimore: Mr. President, 
 I will ask that the Senator from De- 
 Witt yield for a moment. 
 
 The Chair: Does the Senator from 
 DeWitt yield to the Senator from Tar- 
 arnt? 
 
 Senator Bailey: I yield. 
 
 Senator Lattimore: I understand 
 from your resolution — 
 
 Senator Bailey: A little louder. 
 
 Senator Lattimore: Do you mean 
 the regular Committee on Rules? 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: Do you mean 
 the reglar Committee on Rules? 
 
 Senator Bailey: I suggest that in 
 the resolution. I thought we could 
 adopt that in the Senate when we go 
 back to the Senate. I am not par- 
 ticular wedded to that. I didn’t like 
 to have the Committee on Civil Juris- 
 prudence named because I am the 
 Chairman and you are the Vice 
 Chairman of that Committee, and i 
 thought modesty might forbid that. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 The Chair: Let us have order. 
 
 Senator Bailey: But I have no ob- 
 jection. 
 
 Senator Lattimore: The informa- 
 tion that I wanted from the Senator 
 is, the Senate has appointed a special 
 Committee on Rules, of which you are 
 a member, and the Senate has a regu- 
 lar Committee on Rules. 
 
 Senator Bailey: I will state to the 
 Senator from Tarrant that I had 
 thought the work of that Committee 
 was over when the Committee finished 
 that work. I have no objection. 
 
 Senator Lattimore: You have 
 
 reference to the regular Committee on 
 Rules of the Senate, then? 
 
 Senator Bailey: Yes, sir. If the 
 Senator desires to amend that, I have 
 no objection. 
 
 Senator Gibson: Does the Senator 
 from DeWitt yield? 
 
 The Chair: Does the Senator from 
 DeWitt yield? 
 
 Senator Bailey: I yield. 
 
 Senator Gibson: Do I understand 
 you, Senator, to move that this reso- 
 lution lie on the table? At this time 
 I will say to the Senator from De- 
 Witt that it is presented to the 
 Court. 
 
 Senator Bailey: It is offered in 
 open Court on the verdict that has 
 been rendered here, and I ask that 
 it be reported to the Senate, to be 
 acted on by the Senate and let the 
 Senate conclude. 
 
 Senator Gibson: I say, you ask 
 that this resolution be reported to 
 the Senate? 
 
 Senator Bailey: Yes, sir. 
 
 (The written resolution proposed 
 by Senator Bailey, as finally sent up 
 to the Chair, is as follows) : 
 
 Resolved, That on Tuesday, Sep- 
 tember' 25, T917, at 12 o’clock m., 
 the Senate of Texas, sitting as a 
 Court of Impeachment, proceed to 
 pronounce judgment in the matter 
 of the impeachment of James E. Fer- 
 guson, upon the said James E. Fer- 
 guson, Respondent, on such of the 
 charges of impeachment preferred 
 against him by the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, as have been sustained by 
 the Senate sitting as a Court of Im- 
 peachment, and that the Committee 
 on Civil Jurisprudence of the Senate, 
 prepare said judgment and submit 
 the same to the Senate on Monday, 
 September 24, 1917, immediately 
 
 after the morning call is concluded. 
 
 BAILEY. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: Now, Mr. 
 
 President, I move that the session of 
 the Court do now adjourn. 
 
 j- ne Chair: If the Senator from 
 El Paso will yield, the Chair would 
 suggest that the Chair has to pro- 
 nounce the judgment on the vote. 
 
 Senator Bailey: Mr. President, I 
 move that we recess until 10 o’clock 
 Monday morning. 
 
 Senator Gibson: I will say to the 
 Senator from DeWitt, if he will 
 yield — 
 
 The Chair: Does the Senator 
 yield? 
 
 Senator Bailey: Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Gibson: That the report 
 of the Senate has not yet been 
 adopted. 
 
 Senator Bailey: Well, I move that 
 the Court recess until 10 o’clock 
 Monday morning, and I suppose we 
 
920 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 will go back immediately into the 
 Senate. 
 
 Senator Hudspeth: That was 
 
 really the motion I intended to make 
 — -that we recess until 10 o’clock 
 Monday morning, and not adjourn. 
 
 The Chair: The Senaotr from El 
 Paso then moves that the Court re- 
 cess until 10 o’clock Monday morn- 
 ing. Those favoring the motion will 
 signify it by saying “aye”; those op- 
 posed “no.” The ayes have it, and 
 the Court will recess until 10 o’clock 
 Monday morning. 
 
 (The Court thereupon recessed 
 until 10 o’clock Monday morning, 
 September 24, 1917.) 
 
 In the Senate. 
 
 President Pro Tern. Dean in the 
 Chair at 4:45 o’clock p. m. 
 
 Simple Resolution No. 23. 
 
 (By unanimous cousent.) 
 
 Resolved, That on Tuesday, Sep- 
 tember 25, 1917, at 12 o’clock m., 
 the Senate of Texas, sitting as a 
 Court of Impeachment, proceed to 
 pronounce judgment in the matter 
 of the impeachment of James E. Fer- 
 guson, upon the said James E. Fer- 
 guson, Respondent, on such of the 
 charges of impeachment preferred 
 against him by the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, as have been sustained by 
 the Senate, sitting as a Court of Im- 
 peachment, and that the Committee 
 on Civil Jurisprudence of the Sen- 
 ate, prepare said judgment and sub- 
 mit the same to the Senate on Mon- 
 day, September 24, 1917, immediate- 
 ly after the morning call is con- 
 cluded. 
 
 BAILEY. 
 
 The resolution was read and 
 adopted. 
 
 Free Conference Committee Report 
 on Senate Bill No. 8. 
 
 Hon. W. L. Dean, President Pro 
 Tempore of the Senate, and Hon. 
 F. O. Fuller, Speaker of the House 
 of Representatives. 
 
 Sirs: Your Free Conference Com- 
 
 mittee selected and appointed to ad- 
 just the differences between the Sen- 
 ate and the House on Senate Bill No. 
 8, have had the same under consid- 
 eration, and beg leave to report as 
 follows, to wit: 
 
 We recommend that the Senate 
 concur in the House amendments to 
 Senate Bill No. 8. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 HENDERSON, 
 JOHNSTON of Harris, 
 BAILEY, 
 
 HARLEY, 
 
 On the part of the Senate. 
 HOLLAND, 
 
 JOHNSON, 
 
 FISHER, 
 
 MENDELL, 
 
 DUDLEY, 
 
 On the part of the House. 
 
 The foregoing report was laid be- 
 fore the Senate, read and on motion 
 of Senator Henderson the same was 
 adopted. 
 
 Adjournment. 
 
 At 5 o’clock p. m. the Senate, on 
 motion of Senator Clark, adjourned 
 until 10 o’clock Monday morning. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Committee Reports. 
 
 Committee Room, 
 Austin, Texas, Sept. 22, 1917. 
 Hon. W. L. Dean, President Pro 
 
 Tern, of the Senate. 
 
 Sir: We, your Committee on Ed- 
 ucation Affairs, to whom was re- 
 ferred 
 
 S. B. No. 31, A bill to be entitled 
 “An Act to amend Chapter 63, Lo- 
 cal and Special Laws of the State of 
 Texas passed at the Regular Session 
 of the Thirty-fifth Legislature, 
 which chapter is an Act to amend 
 Section 2, Chapter 75, Special Laws 
 of the Regular Session of the Thir- 
 tieth Legislature of 1907, being an 
 Act to authorize, enable and permit 
 the territory within the boundaries 
 of the town of Estelline in Hall 
 County, Texas, and other lands and 
 territory adjacent thereto to incor- 
 porate an Independent School Dis- 
 trict for free school purposes only, 
 known as Estelline Independent 
 
 I 
 
SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 921 
 
 School District, with all the powers, 
 rights and duties of independent 
 school districts formed by incorpora- 
 tion of towns and villages for free 
 school purposes, and declaring an 
 emergency: The said act to be 
 
 amended so as to change the boun- 
 daries thereof leaving certain sec- 
 tions of land out of the said Estel- 
 line Independent School District, and 
 declaring an emergency,” 
 
 Have had the same under consid- 
 eration, and beg to report it back 
 to the Senate, with the recommenda- 
 tion that it do pass and be not 
 printed. 
 
 BEE, Chairman. 
 
 Committee Room, 
 Austin, Texas, Sept. 22, 1917. 
 
 Hon. W. L. Dean, President Pro 
 Tempore of the Senate. 
 
 Sir: Wie, your Committee on Pub- 
 lic Health, to whom was referred 
 S. B. No. 32, A bill to be entitled 
 “An Act to regulate the sale of 
 poisons, providing for marking and 
 designating the packages of contain- 
 ers, and for the registration of the 
 name and address of the purchaser, 
 requiring that all records be kept in 
 well bound books, separate from all 
 other records to be designated ‘Rec- 
 ord of Poison Sales;’ designating 
 what poisons are meant, prescribing 
 a penalty for violations of this Act, 
 and declaring an emergency,” 
 
 Have had the same under consid- 
 eration and I am instructed to report 
 the same back to the Senate with the 
 recommendation that it do pass and 
 be not printed, but printed in the 
 Journal. 
 
 McNEALUS, Chairman. 
 
 By Smith. S. B. No. 32. 
 
 A BILL 
 To be entitled 
 
 An Act to regulate the sale of pois- 
 ons, providing for marking and 
 designating the packages of con- 
 tainers, and for the registration of 
 the name and address of the pur' 
 chaser, requiring that all records 
 be kept in well bound books, sepa- 
 rate from all other records to be 
 designated “Record of Poison 
 Sales;” designating what poisons 
 are meant, prescribing a penalty 
 for violations of this Act, and de- 
 claring an emergency. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Legislature of 
 
 the State of Texas: 
 
 Section 1. Every person, firm or 
 corporation in this State who shall 
 sell any of the poisons hereinafter 
 named shall be required: (a) To 
 keep a permanently bound record . in 
 which shall be recorded at the time 
 of the sale the name and address of 
 the purchaser, if known to the selT- 
 er, and if unknown the sale shall 
 not be made until 'the purchaser 
 shall be identified by some person 
 who is known to the seller, and the 
 name and address of the person so 
 identifying the purchaser shall be 
 recorded with the name and address 
 of the purchaser, and the name and 
 quantity of the poison purchased 
 and the purpose for which same is 
 to be used, which record shall at all 
 times be open to the inspection of 
 all officers charged with the enforce- 
 ment of law; (b) each package or 
 container must be marked with a 
 label containing the name and quan- 
 tity of the poison purchased and the 
 word “Poison” printed in red ink in 
 a conspicuous place on the label, 
 which label shall be placed on every 
 package and container of poison sold. 
 
 Sec. 2. The following poisons 
 shall be included within the provis- 
 ions of this Act: Arsenic, cyanide of 
 potassium, hydrocyanic acid, co- 
 caine, morphine, strychnia, and all 
 other poisonous vegetable alkaloids 
 and their salts, oil of bitter al- 
 monds, containing hydrocyanic acid, 
 opium and its preparations, except 
 paragoric and such others as con- 
 tain less than two gyains of opium 
 to the ounce, aconite, belladonna, 
 cantharides, colchicum, conium, cot- 
 ton root, digitalis, ergot, hellebore, 
 henbane, phytolacca, strophanthus, 
 oil of tansy, veratrum viride and 
 their pharmaceutical preparations, 
 arsenical solutions, carbolic acid, 
 chloral hydrate, chloroform, cor- 
 rosive sublimate, creosote, croton 
 oil, mineral acids, oxalic acid, paris 
 green, salts of lead, salts of zinc, 
 white hellebore or any drug, chem- 
 ical, or preparation which, according 
 to standards works on medicine or 
 materia medica, is liable to be de- 
 structive to adult human life in 
 quantities of sixty grains or less. 
 
 Sec. 3. Any person who shall for 
 himself or as the agent o^ employe 
 of another person, firm or corpora- 
 tion in this State, sell, give or de- 
 
922 
 
 SENATE JOURNAL. 
 
 liver to another without having com- 
 plied with the provisions of this Act 
 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and 
 upon conviction shall be fined not 
 less than $100 nor more than $500, 
 and in addition shall be imprisoned 
 in the county jail for not less than 
 20 days nor more than six months. 
 
 Sec. 4. The short time allotted 
 for the passage of bills in the present 
 session and the fact that there is 
 
 now no adequate law regulating the 
 sale of poisons, and that human life 
 is endangered by the reckless sale of 
 poisons, creates an emergency and an 
 imperative public necessity that the 
 constitutional rule requiring bills to 
 be read on three several days be 
 suspended and that this Act t&ke 
 effect and be in force from and 
 after its passage, and it is so en- 
 acted. 
 

 
 
 
 Jilii . ' • • •- 
 
 ■ ; hm - 
 
 : 30 £ : 
 
 or : - , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 0112 073155654 
 
 # uj