THE QUARTERLY OF THE TEXAS STATE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
VOLUME I. OCTOBER, 1897. NUMBER 2.
AUSTIN, TEXAS: PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE ASSOCIATION. Price, SEVENTY-FIVE CENTS per number. [Entered at the postoffice at Austin, Texas, as second class matter.]
CONTENTS.
Annexation of Texas Sam Houston.
Defunct Counties of Texas R. L. Batts.
Reminiscenses of Austin and Old Washington J. K. Holland.
Enduring Laws of the Republic of Texas C. W. Raines.
The Old Three Hundred Lester G. Bugbee.
Fight on the Frio, July 4, 1865 John S. Ford.
Ven. Maria Jesus de Agreda: A Correction Edmond J. P. Schmitt.
Notes and Fragments.
Questions and Answers.
The Affairs of the Association.
The Texas State Historical Association.
O. M. ROBERTS, President.
VICE-PRESIDENTS.
Dudley G. Wooten, William Corner,
Guy M. Bryan, Mrs. Julia Lee Sinks.
RECORDING SECRETARY AND LIBRARIAN.
George P. Garrison.
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY AND TREASURER.
Lester G. Bugbee.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.
O. M. Roberts, George P. Garrison, Mrs. Dora Fowler Arthur,
Dudley G. Wooten, Eugene Digges, Rufus C. Burleson,
Guy M. Bryan, Z. T. Fulmore, M. M. Kenney,
William Corner, C. W. Raines, R. L. Batts,
Mrs. Julia Lee Sinks, F. R. Lubbock, Mrs. Bride Neill Taylor.
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE.
O. M. Roberts.
George P. Garrison, Dudley G. Wooten,
Z. T. Fulmore, Mrs. Bride Neill Taylor.
Papers read at the meetings of the Association, and such other contributions as may be accepted by the Committee, will be published in The Quarterly.
The Association was organized March 2, 1897. There are no qualifications for membership. The annual dues are two dollars. The Quarterly is sent free to all members.
Contributions to the Quarterly and correspondence relative to historic materials should be addressed to
GEORGE P. GARRISON, Recording Secretary and Librarian, Austin, Texas. All other correspondence concerning the Association should be addressed to LESTER G. BUGBEE, Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer, Austin, Texas.
Vol. I. OCTOBER, 1897. No. 2.
The Publication Committee disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to the Quarterly.
[The following letter from General Houston to Major A. J. Donelson, United States chargé d'affaires in Texas, is reprinted from the Texas Banner (published at Huntsville) of May 26, 1849. It appeared also in Niles' Register, vol. 75, and was later published in the National Intelligencer.—G. P. G.]
Huntsville, Texas,9th April, 1845.
My Dear Major: In accordance with my promise on yesterday, I will now communicate to you some of my views on the question of annexation. I regret that my time will not allow me to go as fully into an examination of the subject as would be desirable, where so much of interest to both countries is involved in the measure. The overture is now made by the United States to Texas; and by an act of the Congress of the former, conditions are proposed by which the latter may be admitted as a part of the Union. I will not discuss the policy of the measure, but allude only to the manner of its consummation.
I am in favor of annexation, if it can take place on terms mutually beneficial to both countries. I have on all occasions evinced the most anxious solicitude touching the matter, and have withheld no means in my power towards its completion. As it now stands, I regard our relation to it in this light:
We are to merge our national existence in that of the United States, whenever the measure may take place. Then it seems to me that we should have something to say as to the terms of the union. By Mr. Brown's resolutions, 1the terms are dictated and the conditions absolute. They are of a character not to have been expected by any one who regarded annexation as a compact between two nations, where each had substantial and acknowledged sovereignty and independence. Texas is required to surrender her sovereignty and merge her independence. In the surrender of her rights, or any portion of them, she should have the privilege of assisting in the adjustment of the conditions; and they should be so defined and understood as that no discontent or misapprehension could thereafter arise as to her true situation. To arrive at a point so desirable, it appears to me that negotiations, conducted by commissioners on the part of each government, should take place. To me, the necessity is most obvious; for the reason that Texas may, in after times, when she recurs to the circumstances and consequences of the measure, be satisfied that the terms on which she had been received were in part, at least, of her own devising, and that she, from some strong impulse, had not acted without due deliberation, and a full discussion of the terms, by persons whose minds had been called to act upon the subject, under the most calm and considerate motives.
Commissioners appointed by the two governments could accomplish all this, and define and settle by negotiation and agreement what might hereafter arise calculated to disturb the future harmony of the United States, and perhaps injure Texas.
The amendments to Mr. Brown's resolutions appear to me to afford the only means to obviate the objections to their provisions. Their terms seem to me, to say the least of them, to be rigid; because they require of us to pay a tribute, or bonus, to the United States, for leave to surrender our sovereignty and national independence—and this, too, in a most summary manner. We are required to “cede” to the United States “all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports, harbors, and navy, and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to the said Republic of Texas.” It ought to have been considered that these enumerated means and property have occasioned a large portion of our national debt, and remains to be paid for by Texas. They have probably cost this nation not less than one million of dollars; and to admit that they are now worth only half that sum, would fix their value at a half million, which would be of great service in organizing a new government or governments, and in cleaning out rivers and improving our facilities for transporting produce to market by means of roads.
If Texas shall be required to surrender her property, without receiving any remuneration for the same, it can only be regarded in the light of a payment or tribute for our admission into the Union. If the resolutions of Mr. Brown are to form the basis of our admission, this objection can not be removed, but must remain as a rebuke to us, in future days, for our hasty and inconsiderate action.
By assuming the amendment as a basis, many objections can be obviated; and by negotiation, terms less exceptionable may be adopted. If the President of the United States should appoint commissioners, and they should be met by corresponding commissioners on the part of Texas, they could come to an agreement upon such terms as would be honorable and just to both parties. The terms thus agreed upon could then be submitted to the people of Texas in their popular capacity, and their votes taken thereupon, at the September election for members of our Congress. If they were approved by their voice, then our Congress could act upon the expression given by the people, and wait for the action of the government of the United States. If that government should accord in the action of this, then Texas could more safely proceed to frame a constitution adapted to her circumstances. The reasons for this course, to my mind, are important, and, I may add, indispensable, in our present condition.
The conditions prescribed in Mr. Brown's resolutions leave us no alternative, and I am satisfied would not have been adopted by the Congress of the United States, apart from the amendment. By the amendment, the President of the United States was allowed an alternative as to the mode of presenting the subject to the government and people of Texas for their consideration and action. But as the alternative chosen might very materially affect the interests of Texas, it is to be hoped and expected that its government will be consulted as to which should be adopted. By the action proposed in the plan of Mr. Brown's resolutions, Texas is denied all option as to the mode of annexation, and is driven into servile submission, and is required to pay a price for her humiliation. If Texas were to accept the conditions as they are now presented to the government of Texas by the government of the United States, it would derange her present form of government, and shake her institutions to their foundation, if her constitution should not be accepted by the Congress of the United States; and my own opinion is, that our admission by Congress would be very doubtful if we were to act upon the first and second sections of the resolutions, without reference to the third.
If the work of annexation is to be consummated, my great desire is to see it done in a manner that may not only be harmonious at present, but so that each party may hereafter, on a review of the whole matter, have nothing to regret or to reproach itself with.
It seems to me, also, that the conditions as to the time to which the action of Texas is limited is too short to enable her to give the subject all the consideration which its importance demands. The Congress of the United States will, doubtless, not adjourn its next regular session before the month of July, 1846. Then it will have ample time to extend the period for the action of Texas until her government and people could carry out their action upon the plan which I propose, and the same that was contemplated by the amendment. If the original resolutions are insisted upon as the basis and the only one, I entertain the most serious doubts as to our ever being admitted, or forming a part of the American Union. Texas has so long been a suppliant, that I am fearful the government of the United States has presumed upon what they suppose to be our necessities, and therefore have been induced to lay such hard conditions upon us. Heretofore the difficulties have all existed on the part of the United States, as to our admission into the Union; nor do I yet regard them as all obviated. If I am right in this, it would be too perilous for Texas to act upon the basis proposed, and subject herself to have the constitution which she might at present submit rejected by the Congress of the United States. It would not only be destructive to the future prospects and welfare of Texas, but convulse the Union to a far greater extent than ever did the tariff or “Missouri question.”
The wish of every American statesman should be to preserve the concord and union of the States; and the desire of every Texan, to cede such rights and privileges to the Union as would be just and proper. We should, however, retain all which would be necessary to us as an equal member of the Confederacy, and part with none which we should require in our new position with a hope of regaining them at a future day. Should we entertain such a hope it might prove fallacious, and be productive of serious and lasting discord. Texas, if annexed, will become a part of the United States in opposition to the wishes of a large portion of the people of the Union, and encounter a strong political opposition. If they are vanquished, they will retain a strong prejudice against the cause or object of their defeat. The party favorable to the admission of Texas may or may not long retain power in the Union. While they retain power, Texas might do well; but if it once passed into the hands of the Opposition, she would in all probability fare equally bad.
For these reasons, I wish that whatever rights Texas has or might be entitled to, should be defined, and understood, and retained by her on her admission to the Union; and this can only be done through the action of the commissioners indicated by the amendment, and without which I feel fully satisfied the bill would not have become a law.
The “consent of the existing government” of Texas, referred to in one portion of the act—and that recognizes some option in our Executive as to the mode by which the affair (so far, at least, as Texas is concerned) should be conducted—is necessary to give validity to the measure. If any commotion should arise in Texas, or a disregard of the constitutional authority, in consequence of the basis proposed not being accepted, I should deem it most unfortunate for the fame and quiet of the President of the United States, by thus furnishing a ground for his enemies to charge him with producing the evil resulting from withholding the choice of the alternatives contained in the law from the Executive of this country.
You may find some who will express the wish or intention even to resort to revolution to secure annexation, without knowing one of the conditions imposed, or anything more than that “it is something about annexation.” If by any irregular mode, or by exciting sedition in the country, the expression of the popular voice could be had, and should be unanimous in favor of the measure, it would be good cause for the Congress of the United States and the President to resist any such action.
They would surely not be willing to inflict such a scandal upon the present enlightened age as the encouragement or sanction of such a course would be.
Another may, by some persons, be suggested to you, and that is—if the President has chosen his position, in declining the proposition as presented, to drive him from his position, and appeal to the people. Of such suggestions, I pray you beware; for I can conceive of no course or curse so fruitful of evils to free government, and subversive of all rule among men, as this would be. It would soon produce its effects, even in the U. States. The President might desire to execute the law; but if occasion prompted, seditionists would quote the act of Texas as a warrant and example for their resistance to the federal authorities.
Nevertheless, there are individuals in Texas who would willingly adopt any course, or pursue any measure, which they might believe to be adverse to my opinions, or that would prostrate the present administration. They would do this, though it should destroy the country. They are men who wish to live upon the means of the government, without labor, and feast and riot upon the substance of the people. Without merit, such men are like vermin in the dead carcass: they can live only in corruption.
Now, my dear friend, for the sake of human liberty,—for the sake of the future tranquillity of the United States—and for the prosperity of Texas, whose interests, prosperity and happiness are near to my heart, and cherished by me above every political consideration, I conjure you to use your influence in having presented to this government the alternative suggested by the amendment to Mr. Brown's bill, so that commissioners can act in conjunetion upon the points which it may be proper to arrange between the two countries, before it is too late, and while there is a remedy. The newspaper press, with, I believe, the organ of the government of the United States, expect the alternative amendment to be presented to Texas, that she may exercise some choice as to the conditions of her entry into the Union.
I can not say what would be proper for the commissioners to agree upon. But I would suggest that Texas, if admitted into the Union, should enjoy full equality and community with the other States of the Confederacy; that the United States should receive and pay Texas a liberal price for the public property which has been acquired for national purposes, and that the amount should be paid to the State of Texas, so soon as it should be organized and admitted as a State.
That Texas should retain her public lands, and if the United States should hereafter vary her boundary or limits, as at present defined, by contracting or reducing them, that in that case they should indemnify the citizens of Texas, by payment for any lands which they may hold, by locations under the laws of Texas, in the territory abandoned by the United States, at the minimum price of the government lands at this time in the United States.
That the government of the United States may at any time purchase the vacant lands of Texas, at a price to be stipulated by the commissioners; and in the event of their purchasing our lands, that they should not (without the consent of the State of Texas) sell to, or permit to settle within the present limits of Texas, any nation, people, or tribe of Indians.
That Texas should pay the national debt.
That the United States should remunerate the citizens of Texas, whose lands fell within the United States in running the boundary lines, in the same manner, and with the same liberality, that Texas did those of the United States, or that they (the United States) pay them for their lands, which had been located on valid titles, issued by the government of Mexico, and at a time when it was believed the limits of Texas would embrace the locations previous to running the line.
And I would recommend that an article be inserted in the agreement, stipulating, expressly, that Texas should not form a part of the Union until her Constitution is accepted by the Congress of the United States.
I candidly conceive that these stipulations are necessary and proper to secure Texas and her citizens, as well as to enable the United States to maintain peace with all the Indians on our borders.
I have thus hastily written you a long letter, subject to frequent interruptions. You may therefore find my meaning, in some things, obscure. I have not even glanced at the general policy of the measure of annexation, but have given my views as to the mode of its execution, and what appears to me necessary to be done by the parties. I must confess that I have not been free from embarrassment on the subject. I have felt so deeply for my venerated and highly valued friend, the Sage of the Hermitage, that nothing but a most sacred regard for my adopted country could have induced me again to thus express my opinions on this subject. The feelings of Gen. Jackson are so much absorbed in the subject of annexation, arising from his views of the importance of the measure to the United States, that he has, very naturally, not been fully able to regard Texas as forming a separate community, and with interests not entirely identical with those of that government. Nevertheless, I know and feel that Gen. Jackson believes that Texas, annexed on any terms, would be equally benefited with the United States, and thereby perpetuate free institutions, and extend the sphere of representative government. Annexation would be certainly beneficial to the United States. On the part of Texas, it is an experiment, which I pray God, if it takes place, may result in enduring happiness and prosperity to a united community.
I am, truly your friend, SAM HOUSTON. Maj. A. J. Donelson, &c., &c.
Under this rather inaccurate title memoranda (perhaps incomplete) is given concerning five classes of counties:
1.Judicial counties.
2.Counties whose names have been changed.
3.Counties whose territories have been entirely changed.
4.Counties, the laws organizing which have been repealed.
5.Counties whose territory is no longer considered part of the State.
At the sessions of the Fifth and Sixth Congresses, held respectively in 1841 and 1842, a number of counties were organized which were subsequently spoken of as “judicial counties.” These counties did not differ from the counties from which they were created except that they were not given representation in Congress. Because this representation was not given, the acts creating them were held unconstitutional, as being in conflict with article I, section 5, of the Constitution of the Republic, which declared that “each county shall be entitled to at least one representative.” Stockton v. Montgomery, Dal., 473; Beazley v. Stinson, Dal., 537; Allen v. Scott, Dal., 615. By Act of July 18, 1842 (Special Session of Sixth Congress, p. 1) acts of boards of land commissioners or district courts, and of surveyors, with reference to lands, were validated.
Burleson.—The judicial county of Burleson was created by the Act of January 15, 1842. (Acts Sixth Cong., p. 35.) It covered territory of which the present county of Burleson, created four years after (Act March 24, 1836, p. 16), is a part.
Burnet.—I find no act creating the judicial county of Burnet, but on December 6, 1841, an act was passed better defining the boundaries of Burnet county. This was entirely distinct from the present county of that name, and included very considerable territory between the Trinity and Sabine rivers. I have assumed that this was a judicial county, because it disappeared without a repealing act (so far as I can find), and because the creation of such counties was the settled policy at the session of Congress at which the act mentioned was passed.
De Witt.—The judicial county of De Witt was created by Act of February 2, 1842. (Acts Sixth Cong., p. 89.) The present county succeeded four years later.
Guadalupe.—The judicial county of Guadalupe was created by Act of January 29, 1842. (Acts Sixth Cong., p. 78.) It was succeeded four years later by the existing county.
Hamilton.—The judicial county of Hamilton was created from Montgomery and Houston counties by Act of February 2, 1842. (Acts Sixth Cong., p. 91.) Its territory was entirely distinct from that of the present county.
La Baca.—The judicial county of La Baca was created by Act of January 29, 1842. (Acts Sixth Cong., p. 74.) It was succeeded four years later by the present county of Lavaca.
Madison.—The judicial county of Madison was created by Act of February 2, 1842 (page 91), from Montgomery county. The present county of Madison was created January 27, 1853 (p. 10) from Grimes, Walker, and Leon counties.
Menard.—The judicial county of Menard was created by Act of January 22, 1841 (Acts Sixth Cong., p. 74), from Liberty county. Its territory was entirely distinct from that of the present county of Menard.
Neches.—The judicial county of Neches wes created from Jasper and Jefferson counties by Act of January 29, 1842. (Acts Sixth Cong., p. 82.)
Panola.—The judicial county of Panola was created by Act of January 30, 1841 (Acts Sixth Cong., p. 153), from Harrison county; is was succeeded in 1846 by the present county.
Paschal.—The judicial county of Paschal was created from Red River, Bowie, and Lamar counties by Act of January 28, 1841. (Acts Fifth Cong., p. 56.)
Waco.—The judicial county of Waco was created from Robertson and Milam by Act of January 29, 1842. (Acts Sixth Cong., p. 80.)
Ward.—The judicial county of Ward was created from Matagorda and Colorado by Act of January 19, 1841. (Acts Fifth Cong., p. 65.) Its territory was entirely distinct from that of the present county of Ward.
Bevil.—Bevil's settlement was organized in 1830 into a precinct of Nacogdoches municipality; it was organized in 1834 as a separate municipality. The name was changed in 1835 to Jasper, which is still retained as the name of the county succeeding the municipality.
Buchanan.—Buchanan county was created by Act of January 22, 1858 (p. 58); name was changed by Act of December 7, 1861 (p. 8), to Stephens, which is retained.
Columbia.—The municipality of Brazoria was formed May 12, 1832 (Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, p. 197); the name was changed to Columbia by Decree 233 (Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, p. 274), without date; the name Brazoria was restored in 1835, and is retained.
Davis.—The name of Cass county was changed to Davis by Act of December 17, 1861, but the original name was restored by Act of May 16, 1871 (p. 92).
Harrisburg.—The name Harrisburg was changed to Harris by Act of December 28, 1839. (Acts Fourth Cong., p. 222.)
Mina.—The municipality of Mina was created in 1834. (Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, No. 283, p. 274.) Name changed to Bastrop by Act of December 18, 1837 (p. 90).
Navasota.—Created by Act of January 30, 1841 (p. 86); name changed to Brazos, January 28, 1842.
Tenehaw.—By Act of January 11, 1836 (p. 122), the name of the municipality of Tenehaw (Tenaha) was changed to Shelby, which is retained as the name of the county succeeding the municipality.
Viesca.—Name of municipality of Viesca changed by Act of December 26, 1835 (p. 99), to Milam, which is retained as the name of the county succeeding the municipality.
San Patricio.—The municipality of San Patricio was established by Decree 283 of Coahuila and Texas (p. 274). One of its boundary lines was defined by Act of May 24, 1838 (p. 36), and its boundaries were completely defined by Act of April 18, 1846 (p. 86), and were further affected by Act of March 17, 1887 (p. 28), and April 13, 1891 (p. 172). Mr. Pressler, expert draughtsman of the General Land Office of Texas, is authority for the statement that no part of the present county is included in the original territory.
Buchel.—By Act of April 22, 1897, this county was abolished and its territory included within Brewster county.
Dawson.—By Act of February 1, 1857 (p. 87), a county by the name of Dawson was created from Kinney and Uvalde counties. The act was not expressly repealed, but the county was obliterated by Acts of September 29 and October 5, 1866 (pp. 18 and 21), changing lines of Uvalde and Kinney. Its territory was entirely distinct from that of the present county of Dawson.
Foley.—By Act of April 22, 1897, this county was abolished and its territory included in Brewster county.
Wegefarth.—Wegefarth county was created by Act of May 31, 1873 (p. 67). It included a large territory on Prairie Dog Town Fork of Red River. The creative act was repealed August 21, 1876.
Greer.—The county of Greer, composed of territory between the Red River and the Prairie Dog Town Fork thereof, was created by Act of February, 8, 1860 (p. 138). The Supreme Court of the United States has held that this territory was not within the boundaries of Texas. (United States v. Texas, 162 U. S., 1.)
Santa Fe.—The county of Santa Fe was created by Act of March 15, 1848 (p. 95), with the following boundaries: Beginning at junction of Rio Puerco with the Rio Grande, and running up the principal stream of said Rio Grande to its source; thence due north to the forty-second degree of north latitude; thence along the boundary line as defined in the treaty between the United States and Spain to the point where the one hundred degree of longitude west of Greenwich intersects Red River; thence up the principal stream of said Red River to its source; thence in a direct line to the source of the principal stream of the Rio Puerco, and down said Rio Puerco to place of beginning. This territory was ceded to the United States by Act of November 25, 1850, accepting Act of the United States Congress of September 4, 1850.
Worth.—Worth county was created by Act of January 3, 1850 (p. 201). It was composed of the following territory: Beginning on the Rio Grande at the northwest corner of the county of El Paso; thence up said river to a point twenty miles above the town of Sabine; thence due to the eastern branch of the Rio Pecos; thence down said stream to the northeast corner of the county of El Paso; thence with the north boundary line of said county of El Paso to the place of beginning. This territory was included in that ceded to the United States by the Act of November 25, 1850, accepting the act of United States Congress of September 4, 1850.
Texas has an unpublished history, as interesting as it is real, hidden within the dusty leaves of the past, which should be recovered and perpetuated by the State at any cost; for without it the early life of the young Republic and the State will never be seen exactly as it was. Much of it is to be found in the memory of the survivors of that time, and there are lying scattered in waste places many of its fragments in written material which could be had for the asking, or at any rate for a very small consideration. But the opportunities to preserve it that now exist will soon be lost, for the old Texans are fast passing away, and old letters and journals are being continually thrown aside or destroyed as waste paper by owners who do not appreciate their historical value. With the burning of the old capitol in 1881, the people of Texas have to deplore the loss of valuable archives and public documents containing information relative to the leading men and events of its history, which can never be fully reclaimed.
When I first knew Austin, during the '40's, it was a little country town on what was then the Texas frontier, and had only a few hundred inhabitants. Those were the log cabin days of the Republic. General Houston lived in one of the Austin log cabins, which he called his wigwam, and up and down Congress avenue on either side were scattered others in which were located the headquarters of the various departments of the government. At that time houses in Texas had no parlors. There were “groceries,” so-called, in which liquor alone was sold, but there were no “saloons.” The country was without railroads, or even buggies; but some old rickety stage coaches plied irregularly between San Antonio and Houston by way of Austin, and the passenger who traveled in these had to work his way by carrying a fence rail on his shoulder for long distances and helping to pry the vehicle out of mudholes, in order to reach his destination at all.
The Bastrop highway ran along where Pecan street now is. The war-cry of the Indians could be heard in the night-time within the very gates of the capital. It was not safe for any man to go alone or without his gun beyond the limits of the town; for there was great danger of being shot or captured by the redskins who lay waiting in the mountains around for an opportunity to steal, rob, or murder. Barton Springs and Mount Bonnell were the only places of resort for the citizens. The old Congress Hall sat on the hill just south of the present Governor's Mansion, on the spot where the City Hall now stands—a spot sacred to all old Texans, for there the fathers of Texas met to deliberate on the weighty affairs that demanded their attention.
It was within this weather-beaten, consecrated old building that I made my political d⁁ebut in 1849 as Representative from Rusk and Panola. Later I sat within the same walls as Senator from Shelby and Panola. When I entered the House of Representatives I was one of the youngest, if not in fact the youngest, member of the Legislature. To-day I am, according to the best of my knowledge, the oldest living member of the Senate to which I belonged, and, with the exception of Hon. Guy M. Bryan and Hon. W. H. Martin, the only member of that honorable body still alive. Both of these gentlemen subsequently occupied seats in the United States Congress.
In 1842-3, President Houston, fearing an attack by Santa Anna upon the city of Austin, transferred his administrative headquarters first to Houston and then to Washington on the Brazos, where the seat of government had been located temporarily in earlier times. The town is now nearly extinct. Washington was a small village, and it was difficult for the government to obtain suitable rooms for Congress. About the biggest building in the town was Hatfield's “grocery,” or saloon as we now say; but that was a very important place of resort, where congressmen and strangers were most in the habit of congregating. It was in fact too important a place to give up for other purposes; but it was finally yielded to the House of Representatives. The saloon itself was not surrendered; but there was a large hall above it used for gambling purposes, and this hall was rented by the government. In order to accommodate the convenience of the members and to protect them from temptation, it was thought advisable to move the stairway from the inside of the building to the outside—at least for the time. So it was removed, and the opening where it had passed up into the hall above was temporarily floored over, the boards not being nailed.
In the hall thus prepared occurred the ball at the inauguration of President Anson Jones in 1845, the first and last inaugural ball, as I believe, that was held in Texas during the days of the Republic. The attendance of prominent men and beautiful women was very large, and the ball-room was densely packed. In the course of the evening there happened a contretemps of a rather ridiculous nature, the story of which may not be without interest here.
During one of the intervals in the dancing I was sitting beside a young lady, and we were waiting for the tap of the fiddle to take our places on the floor and join the dance. She was rather large, very attractive, and to judge from the marked attention of the distinguished men who surrounded her, very popular also. She seemed to be particularly admired by Gen. T. J. Chambers, who had escorted her to the ball, and who stood beside her while we waited. When the signal came we sprang up to take our places, but I observed that she was pulling back; and on looking around I saw that she was sinking through the floor into the saloon below. I had just time to catch her by one arm. General Chambers lent his assistance, and together we drew her up and relieved her from her awkward position and the prospect of a dangerous fall. Our rising had disarranged the carelessly laid planks over the opening of the staircase, and they had given way beneath her. The delay, however, occasioned by the accident was but momentary; we took position at once, and the dance went merrily on.
In the same hall, some years before, occurred another incident that may be worth relating. A large body of gamblers and like characters had gathered in the town and held complete sway. The citizens were cautious of what they said and to whom they said it, for these men defied all law. While things were in this condition, Rev. Robert Alexander, whom the Methodist church had sent along with Rev. Littleton Fowler and a Rev. Mr. Wilson to preach the gospel in Texas, stopped in Washington. He at once engaged the room over Hatfield's saloon and announced that he would preach there on the following Sunday. The gamblers sent him word that he could not use that hall, that it was employed for other purposes, and that they would not allow him to preach in it. Mr. Alexander was a man of gigantic frame, being nearly seven feet in height, and had courage in proportion to his size. He repeated his announcement and was there on time. He walked leisurely into the hall and spoke courteously to the men there assembled. Assuming that they were there to hear him, though he knew that it was not so, and that they were getting ready for their usual game, he affected not to notice the cards that he saw them slipping into their seats behind them, and made preparations to begin his sermon. He arose, and some of the more determined men in the crowd made demonstrations as if to rise also, but did not. He opened his Bible and laid it on the billiard table, then remarked that if there were those present who did not wish to hear him they could leave. None left. He said he had come to preach, and he meant to do it. He again remarked that if any were present who did not desire to hear the gospel he wished them to leave. Still nobody went. He then proceeded with a fire and brimstone sermon. Soon after beginning he discovered a little commotion among his hearers. He paused and simply said that he wished their attention, and order was restored at once. When he got through the men came forward, shook his hand and thanked him heartily, made up a purse for him, told him if he ever needed more money to call on them, and sent him on his way rejoicing.
Mr. Alexander continued to preach all over Texas to the time of his death, which occurred at his home in Chappell Hill only a few years ago; but he never lived outside of Washington county. He was honored and loved not only by his own church, but by all denominations.
The intermingling of two distinct races on the soil of Texas, with diverse customs and traditions of law, resulted in the mastery of one, but with a blended system of jurisprudence. The two acts cited further along, and forming, in fact, the subject of this paper, well illustrate the spirit of the times when men's minds, just breaking loose from the moorings of a barbaric past, were looking forward to something liberal and ennobling in law-making. And passed as they were amid the throes of a life and death struggle for existence, they reflect more honor on the Republic than the splendid campaigns of Bexar and San Jacinto. “Peace hath her victories no less renowned than war.” “There were giants in those days,” and bold, far-seeing statesmen, too, to legislate for humanity in all times to come, with the enemy at the gates.
Texas was warring with hostile Indians in the interior and menaced with a Mexican invasion in the west, when Mirabeau B. Lamar entered upon his duties as president. His message to the Congress, breathing a spirit of defiance to all the enemies of the Republic, with words of cheer to his countrymen, touching all subjects of public interest, calm and statesmanlike in tone, embraced in its scope an earnest recommendation to provide a system of education.
Among other things, the president says: “But it would be superfluous to offer to this honorable Congress any extended argument to enforce the practical importance of this subject. I feel fully assured that it will in the liberal spirit of improvement that pervades the social world, lose not the present auspicious opportunity to provide for literary institutions, with an influence commensurate with our future destinies. * * * Our young Republic has been framed by a Spartan spirit. Let it progress and ripen into Roman firmness and Athenian gracefulness and wisdom. * * * The present is a propitious moment to lay the foundation of a great moral and intellectual edifice which will in after ages be hailed as the chief ornament and blessing of Texas. A suitable appropriation of lands to the purpose of general education can be made at this time, without inconvenience to the Government or the people; but defer it until the public domain shall have passed from our hands, and the uneducated youths of Texas will constitute the living monument of our neglect and remissness.” 2
In response to the above message, Mr. E. W. Cullen, Chairman of the House Committee on Education, made an elaborate report, from which are given these pertinent extracts: “Your committee views it as one of the first and paramount duties of Congress to provide a system of general education; and although it is not in our power to carry into effect immediately a general system, yet we should lay the foundation while it is in our power by making suitable appropriations of the public domain and setting the same apart to enable us, so soon as our situation will permit, to establish primary schools and colleges where every class can receive alike the benefits and blessings of education. Intelligence is the only aristocracy in a government like ours (and the improved and educated has and will ever triumph over the ignorant and uneducated mind).” 3
The report concludes with recommending for passage a bill prepared by Mr. Cullen; as to which, W. H. Wharton, chairman of the Senate Committee on Education, says in his report: “The committee could present a long report on the importance of education, but believing that fact to be admitted by all, such a report would be commonplace and unnecessary. All that can be done at present is to secure a sufficient reservation of the public lands for the purposes of education. The system of schools can be amended hereafter. Inasmuch as the Committee on Education in the House of Representatives has offered a bill setting apart a certain quantity of lands for the purpose of education, your Committee deem any further action on the subject unnecessary at present.” 4
Mr. Cullen's bill accordingly, after a few changes for the better, became the law, as follows:
“An Act entitled an act appropriating certain lands for the establishment of a general system of education.
Section 1.“ Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Republic of Texas in Congress assembled: That each county of this Republic shall have three leagues of land surveyed and set apart for the purpose of establishing a primary school or academy in said county, which said land shall be located and surveyed by the county surveyor or his deputy in each county, and to be paid the fees now alowed by law under the land law, out of the county treasury; provided, there is that quantity of good, vacant land in the counties; and further provided, that said land may be surveyed in any sized tracts; provided, that said lands shall not be surveyed in tracts less than one hundred and sixty acres. 5
Section 2.“Be it further enacted, That when there is not a sufficient quantity of good land that is vacant in any county, the County Court of such counties shall be, and they are hereby empowered and required to have surveyed upon any of the vacant lands of this Republic, said quantity of land, and pay the expenses of the land out of the county treasury.
Section 3.“Be it further enacted, That when said lands are surveyed in acordance with this act, the surveyor shall return a correct description of the same, with the field notes of the survey, to the clerk of the County Court, who shall record the same and forward a transcript of the same to the Commissioner of the General Land Office after it is recorded, with his certificate and seal of office thereto attached; and when the lands so surveyed are not situated in the county for which it is surveyed, the description and field notes shall be recorded in the county where it is surveyed, as well as in the county for which it is surveyed, and forwarded to the Land Office as above described.
Section 4.“Be it further enacted, That the President of the Republic be and he is hereby authorized and required to appoint a surveyor and have surveyed on and from any of the vacant lands of this Republic, fifty 6 leagues of land, which is to be set apart and is hereby appropriated for the establishment and endowment of two Colleges or Universities, hereafter to be created; 7 and that the President is hereby authorized to draw upon the Treasury of this Republic for such sum or sums of money as may be necessary for defraying the expenses to be incurred by locating and surveying said lands.
Section 5.“Be it further enacted, That said surveyor so appointed shall make out a complete description of the land so surveyed, and a neat and correct map of the same, and deposit them, together with the field notes, in the General Land Office of this Republic; shall also take and subscribe to this oath or affirmation: `I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have well and truly discharged my duties to the best of my knowledge, skill, and ability, and that the field notes and description of said land are as correct as I could make them. So help me God.' Which said oath is to be taken before a Chief Justice of the County Court and deposited in the Land Office; and the surveyors of the different counties to survey the lands contemplated by this act shall take and subscribe the same oath, which shall be recorded in the clerk's office of the County Court.
Section 6.“Be it further enacted, That none of the lands appropriated and set apart by this act for the purpose of education shall be disposed of in any manner except by lease until the expiration of three years, and none of said lands shall be disposed by lease for a longer term than three years.
“John M. Hansford, “Speaker House of Representatives. “David G. Burnet, “Prest. Senate. “Approved Jan. 26, 1839. “Mirabeau B. Lamar.”
An amendatory act by the next Congress, approved February 5, 1840, made the chief justice and two associate justices of each county ex officio a board of school commissioners, and added another league to the three leagues before granted; making it the duty of the school commissioners to have said lands located and surveyed as early as might be convenient, and to organize any parts of their several counties into school districts for the purpose of establishing schools in the same, whenever in their opinion the population or interests of education required it.
None but graduates of some college or University might teach in the academic schools, while for the common schools the teacher had to give evidence of a good moral character, and capacity to teach reading, writing, English grammar, arithmetic, and geography.
The following is the educational endowment under the present Constitution as defined in Article VII:
Sec. 2.“All funds, lands, and other property heretofore set apart and appropriated for the support of the public schools; all the alternate sections of land reserved by the State out of grants heretofore made or that may hereafter be made to railroads or other corporations of any nature whatsoever; one-half of the public domain of the State; and all sums of money that may come to the State from the sale of any portion of the same, shall constitute a perpetual school fund.
Sec. 3.“One-fourth of the revenue derived from the State occupation taxes, and a poll tax of one dollar on every male inhabitant of this State between the ages of twenty-one and sixty years, shall be set apart annually, for the benefit of the public free schools, and in addition thereto there shall be levied and collected an annual ad valorem State tax of such an amount, not to exceed twenty cents on the one hundred dollars valuation, as, with the available school fund arising from all other sources, will be sufficient to maintain and support the public free schools of the State for a period of not less than six months in each year.” * * *
When Texas entered the Union, the statute of 1839 had attained the stability of a constitutional provision, and to-day, in its complete evolution, it stands for our system of education. And nothing has given Texas so much character at home and abroad as that. In none of its stages of development has it lacked for friends. To say nothing of President Lamar and its original movers, Governor Pease, under its sanction, induced the founding of a system of public schools and set it in operation. 8 And later on, in 1861, Governor Lubbock, expressly to save the educational fund from improper use, vetoed “An act making an appropriation for the mileage and per diem pay of the members and officers of the Ninth Legislature,” which, among other provisions, authorized for the purpose the use of the funds of the University, with other funds named. (Archives State Department, vol. 81, pp. 71-5.) All the statesmen in all the constitutional conventions assisted in its continued development. As for the higher education, besides Governor Roberts and Lieutenant Governor Storey, Senator John C. Buchanan, author of the act establishing the University of Texas, with his able coadjutors, R. M. Wynne, A. W. Terrell, John Y. Gooch, and J. B. Stubbs, 9 must have due credit. All these may be considered as executors of a bequest from the Texan fathers. And what a bequest is the magnificent educational system of Texas, embracing the common schools, the graded schools, the normals, and the great University at Austin, with its branches at Bryan and Galveston—all the outgrowth of the crude statute passed in 1839.
That the Republic of Texas was fully abreast of the age in reformatory legislation is well attested by this statute of the Third Congress: 10
“An Act entitled an act to exempt certain property therein named from execution.
Section 1.“Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Republic of Texas in Congress assembled: That from and after the passage of this act, there shall be reserved to every citizen or head of a family in this Republic, free and independent of the power of a writ of fieri facias or other execution issuing from any court of competent jurisdiction whatever, fifty acres of land or one town lot, including his or her homestead and improvements not exceeding five hundred dollars in value, all household and kitchen furniture (provided it does not exceed in value two hundred dollars), all implements of husbandry (provided they shall not exceed fifty dollars in value), all tools, apparatus, and books belonging to the trade or profession of any citizen, five milch cows, one yoke of work oxen, or one horse, twenty hogs, and one year's provisions; and that all laws and parts of laws contravening or opposing the provisions of this act be and they are hereby repealed; provided, the passage of this act shall not interfere with contracts between parties heretofore made.
“Jno. M. Hansford, “Speaker of the House of Representatives. “David G. Burnet, “President of the Senate. “Approved Jan. 26, 1839.” “Mirabeau B. Lamar.”
Now, so far as we know, this appears to be the first homestead act ever passed in any country. The spirit of the age was in revolt against the harshness of the common law as to insolvent debtors; and its first effect was the abolition of imprisonment for debt. And the early repeal of the vindictive legislation authorizing such imprisonment is the proud boast of many States in the American Union. The Republic of Texas makes the prouder boast, that her first constitution expressly rejected this relic of barbarism.
Such dire results as the destruction of trade, etc., which were confidently predicted by some when the creditor lost the power to imprison the debtor, not having followed, the next step was to ameliorate the condition of the insolvent still more, by leaving in his possession, free from the demands of creditors, some of the means of subsistence. This was done in the American State of Alabama and in the Mexican State of Coahuila y Texas in the years 1833-34.
The Alabama statute provided “that one work horse, mule, or pair of oxen, one horse or oxcart, shall be retained by and for the use of every family in the State, free and exempt from levy or sale by virtue of any execution or other legal process.” 11 This was but scant recognition of the debtor's inalienable right to his means of earning a living for himself and family; but it proved to be the entering wedge for better legislation afterwards.
Below is the decree of Coahuila y Texas, No. 277:
Section X.“Things not implied are understood.
Art. 141.“Executions in all civil cases shall not deprive the debtor of those things understood as the only means of his lawful subsistence, nor of those which simply imply his preservation and protection. As
Art. 142.“Every man shall have the right and privilege of retaining his wearing apparel, bed clothing, cooking utensils, and the necessary implements of that trade, calling, or profession whereby he is enabled to obtain the means of support; as also his military accoutrements, of whatever name, nature, or kind they may be.
Art. 143.“If the debtor should be a man of family, the property of his wife and children must be respected, whether it be the property of purchase, increase, or gift; if a gift from the debtor, to be valid to the owner, it must be given, received, and recorded in the office of the alcalde of the jurisdiction previous to the time the present debt demanded by the sheriff was contracted.” 12
This decree, springing from the more refined jurisprudence of the civil law, more clearly enunciating the principle in question, is more comprehensive and satisfactory throughout than the crude American statute in Alabama.
Decree No. 277, of which the section quoted above is a part, created a judicial circuit called “The Superior Judicial Court of Texas,” with all its rules and regulations. The decree is better known among the old American colonists of Texas as Chambers' Jury Law, because it provided a system of jury trial, and because T. J. Chambers was the first superior judge.
This decree, however, was never put fully into operation in Texas, and it is impossible to tell now what might have been the effect. The approaching Revolution turned thought into other channels, and the discussion of laws gave place to the clash of arms. “Inter arma leges silent.” It was only after San Jacinto, and when such statesmen as Lamar and Rusk and such soldiers as Albert Sidney Johnston were in high office, that the Republic felt sufficiently composed to enter upon a system of legislation at once liberal, beneficient, and permanent. And of all the laws of the Third Congress none was of more far-reaching importance than the homestead statute. Exemption from forced sale before this time had applied only to personal property. Now for the first time it touched the realty. Under the provisions of this statute, the insolvent debtor has reserved both a home for his family and some means of support.
Though the homestead law of Texas marks the beginning of an era of beneficient legislation; yet curiously enough, little is known of the circumstances of its enactment. The bill met with little or no opposition, and its appearance in our statute book at first excited little notice or comment. The law was salutary in its effects, and six years later, at the Annexation Convention, it knocked for admission into the State Constitution. 13 Abner S. Lipscomb reported section 22 for the proposed Constitution, which reads thus:
“Section 22. General Provisions. The Legislature shall have power to protect by law from forced sale certain portions of the property of all heads of families, and in all cases the homestead of a family, not to exceed 160 acres of land, shall be exempt from sale by execution.”
Jno. Hemphill, afterwards Mr. Lipscomb's colleague on the Supreme Bench of the State, also gave the measure his hearty support. The distinguished President of the Convention, T. J. Rusk, left the chair to take part in the debates on the floor. He offered an amendment striking out 160 acres and inserting in lieu thereof 200 acres of land, which, after some discussion, was adopted. In this shape, with some other unimportant amendments, it passed, and is the law still as to the number of acres of land. There was scarcely any opposition to the homestead principle per se. The question was only as to its extent. The debates disclosed that the Alabama exemption statute of 1833 had been recently (1843) amended so as to embrace a homestead of 40 14 acres of land. The apparent success of the law in Alabama doubtless helped the passage of the Rusk amendment raising the quantity of land exempted by our homestead law to 200 acres.
The proposed section to the Constitution was carried by a vote of 42 to 14. Statesmen like Isaac Van Zandt and J. Pinkney Henderson voted “no,” not because they were opposed to the principle, but to indicate their dissatisfaction with the particular measure. Jas. Love, one of the delegates from Galveston, voted “no,” because, as he claimed, it was a discrimination against the poor. Jas. Scott, a delegate from Montgomery, opposed the whole exemption idea, and denounced the proposed section as a piece of dishonesty and a fraud on the rights of creditors. He carried his opposition so far as to have his protest spread on the record.
Once imbedded in the organic law, the homestead act has had a triumphant course through all the successive constitutional conventions. Surviving the contention of political parties and the shock of revolution, the homestead idea in its fullness is thus expressed in the existing statutes of Texas:
“The homestead of a family, not in a town or city, shall consist of not more than two hundred acres of land, which may be in one or more parcels, with the improvements thereon; the homestead in a city, town, or village, consisting of a lot or lots not to exceed in value five thousand dollars at the time of their designation as the homestead, without reference to the value of any improvements thereon.” 15
The following explanation is added in the statute:
“The exemption of the homestead provided for in this chapter shall not apply when the debt is due
1.“aFor the purchase money of such homestead, or a part of such purchase money.
2.“For taxes due thereon.
3.“For work and material used in constructing improvements thereon.”
Legislation in derogation of rights under the common law is, as a rule, strictly construed by the courts; but in deference to popular sympathy, doubtless, they give a liberal construction to the homestead law, and thus materially extend its provisions in case of doubt or ambiguity, and through successive constitutions and judicial decisions the principle has been continually growing in Texas. And the example of Texas has been contagious throughout the Union; so much so that in every State and Territory the exemption principle is recognized as to property, real or personal, or both. In fifteen or more States there are constitutional provisions for the exemption of the homestead from forced sale—the distinctive Texan idea. The principle is also recognized in Federal legislation and in the decisions of the Federal courts.
Who originated the homestead law? It would seem that the author of this law would be well known to the world. Not so, however. History does not claim to have found out his name, nor do the journals of the Congress disclose it. Neither do any of the congressional records that I have been able to examine in the State Department definitely point out his name. But there is, or rather was, another source of information—the man himself who claimed the honor, Judge Emory Rains, 16 then the member from Shelby and Sabine counties. The Judge was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to which was referred a joint resolution exempting certain property therein named from execution. This joint resolution, however, exempted only personal property, and not a homestead.
I can not trace this resolution or any bill in either house with certainty to the statute itself. “A bill to exempt certain property from execution” did pass the Senate on the day of adjournment, 17 though I can not ascertain its provisions, whether extending to realty or not. It was reported either from the Committee on Indian Affairs or the Committee on Public Lands, it is not certain which, but, of course, presumably the latter. The Senate Journals do not show the name of the member who offered the bill.
The exemption bill which passed the House 18 was introduced by Louis P. Cook. 19 On the last day of the session “a message was received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate had concurred in `An act to exempt certain property therein named from execution.' ” And this is the title of the enrolled bill which, passing both houses, became the law. This tends to show, but not conclusively, that the law originated from the House bill. If true, the credit of offering the bill evidently belongs to Cook, whoever may have conceived the idea and prepared the bill itself. I have yet to learn, however, that Cook ever claimed to have originated the homestead law.
Such well known Texans as Judge Reagan and Governors Lubbock and Roberts vouch for Judge Rains' character as a man of truth and honor, and Governor Roberts says unqualifiedly that he would implicitly believe any statement that Rains had made on this subject.
It only remains to add, that Judge Rains always claimed the honor of originating the homestead law. He made this claim repeatedly on the hustings and elsewhere from 1839 on, and there has never been any rival claimant for the honor. All the acquaintances of the Judge in Eastern Texas, the place of his residence, will bear witness to the truth of this statement.
From the foregoing, it may be accepted as true that the Republic of Texas led the way in homestead legislation, and that Emory Rains 20 framed the first homestead statute of the age.
Judge Rains was gathered to his fathers at a ripe old age, honored and respected in the little county that bears his name, and his ashes sleep well in a neglected grave on the banks of the historic Sabine.
The scheme for the distribution of land to his colonists which Stephen F. Austin laid before the governor of Texas in 1821 provided that each head of a family should receive 640 acres for himself, and an additional but smaller grant for his wife, children, and slaves. This arrangement was superseded by the colonization law passed by the Junta of Iturbide and confirmed, by special decree applicable to Austin's contract only, by the republican government which came into power upon the Emperor's deposition. By this law each family received not less than one labor (about 177 acres) or one sitio (about 4428 acres) of land, according as the occupation of the head was farming or stock-raising. The lands were distributed by a commissioner, appointed by the governor of Texas, who issued titles to the settlers designated by Austin. The law gave Austin and the commissioner jointly the power to increase without limit the quantity of land assigned to persons who were especially deserving. Under this provision, James Cummins, John P. Coles, and William Rabb received large tracts for erecting mills. Jared E. Groce was given ten sitios ``on account of the property he has brought with him,'' which consisted chiefly in a large number of slaves; and many families who came to Texas in 1821 and 1822, and endured the hardships of those winters, reaped the reward of their patience in increased grants.
The three hundred families were all, or nearly all, in Texas before the close of the summer of 1824. The work of issuing titles was begun by the commissioner, Baron de Bastrop, in July of that year; before August 24, when he was called away, he had issued two hundred and seventy-two. The work remained unfinished till 1827, when Gasper Flores was appointed commissioner and gave deeds to the remaining families.
There was no provision in the law for granting land to men without families. These were joined in groups of two and three, and each group constituted a legal family, which explains the numerous partnerships in the list given below.
The lands chosen by the settlers were the rich bottoms of the Brazos, the Colorado, and the Bernard, each sitio having a frontage on the river equal, in theory at least, to about one-fourth of its length; the east bank of the Brazos was wholly occupied from the Gulf as far up as the present county of Brazos. The greater part of the labors were laid off in three groups, one just above San Felipe de Austin, another a short distance below, and the third across the river immediately opposite the town.
There were three hundred and seven titles issued; nine families received two titles each, which leaves, not including Stephen F. Austin, two hundred and ninety-seven as the actual number of families introduced under this contract. The law required that all lands should be occupied and improved within two years after receipt of deed. It is a sufficient commentary on the sturdy character of these early settlers that but seven of the grants were forfeited.
The original titles are now in the archives of the General Land Office at Austin, Texas, bound in volumes of convenient size. They were also copied, as they were issued, by Samuel M. Williams, in the Register of Land Titles, etc., and these copies, by special decree of the government, were declared of equal validity with the originals. They have since been translated. My references are to the translated Register and to the original titles. The form and spelling of all the names except thirty-one are taken from the autographs of the settlers affixed to their applications, which appear in the deeds. In many instances the spelling of the names has been altered by Samuel M. Williams or his clerk. The title, for instance, which clearly bears the autograph of Pleasant D. McNeel, is issued to Pleasant D. McNeil. Most of the signatures are plainly written.
Only four of those whose autographs are given in the titles were unable to write.
Many of the men who were ever ready to meet the Indians in deadly conflict are now gathered to their fathers. Some of them yet live. Among these is Leroy W. Trimble. He lived in Karnes county, at the ranch of his father. The elder Trimble bought cattle on the Leona river, about sixty miles from San Antonio. Late in June, 1865, Leroy Trimble, Daniel Williams and his cousin L. P. Williams and brother J. H. Williams, William English, and Sam W. Trimble left San Antonio to visit Leona river. They stopped on Leona river, at the ranch of Capt. Levi English. They contemplated going to the ranch of Edward Burleson on the fourth of July, to have a dance. This Burleson was a nephew of the elder General Burleson. The young men were gathering horses for the ladies to ride, when a runner came in and spread the news that Indians had crossed from Mexico and had attacked Burleson, but he had escaped. They got his hat and a horse staked about forty yards from his house.
This report changed the program. Everything possible was done to meet the savages. Capt. Levi English assumed the leadership. He gathered all the men he could. Many of them could not procure horses. They were left to protect the women and children, at different houses. At the instance of Captain English, Leroy Trimble and brother remained at his house.
About an hour after the departure of English the horses came to the house running. A gate was opened and they entered a lot. An Indian came within speaking distance, and ordered that the horses be turned out of the lot. Leroy Trimble yelled back to the Indians: “If you wish the horses to be turned out, come and turn them out yourselves.”
His brother had a gun without a hammer. He carried a small hammer in his hand to discharge the gun by striking the cap. He was anxious to fire, but was induced not to do so. There were seven Indians in sight, and the danger was a charge upon the house, and a certain destruction of thirty women and children.
Captain English moved from Burleson's ranch with the following men: Edward Burleson, Daniel Williams, B. Oden, Bud English, W. C. Daugherty, John Berry, William Bell, Frank Williams, Alford Franks, George Daugherty — eleven in all. They took the trail near Burleson's house. They had been gone about one hour and a half. Captain English and John Berry were the trailers, and they were proficients in that business. The Indians had proceeded down the Frio river. About 3 o'clock in the evening they came in sight of the Indians, going towards the sun in order to baffle the sight of the white men. They were moving in single file. The Texians counted eighteen horses. Believing this to be the number of Indians, Captain English ordered a charge, which was gallantly made. When the whites reached the Indians they found every horse carrying double, and thirty-six Kickapoo Indians. The Texians came close to their enemies, dismounted, and began fighting. The Indians formed a half-moon and charged. The Texians were too brave to fall back, but fought with desperate courage. The Indians recoiled, and the Texians charged them. In this manner the contest continued for an hour and a half. Finally Edward Burleson killed the chief and the horse he was riding, which belonged to Miss English, now Mrs. Reuben Bell. The loss of their chief dispirited the Kickapoos, and they withdrew. The Texians moved off unmolested.
The loss of the whites were three killed—Daniel Williams, Dean Oden, and Bud English. Captain English had just cautioned him to keep moving, and give the Indians no chance to draw a long sight on him. Immediately after the caution young English was a corpse. He was a young man of much promise and undoubted bravery.
The wounded were: Captain English, Edward Burleson, W. C. Daugherty, George Daugherty, William Bell. John Berry had two arrows shot through his leather leggings into his horse. He was unable to dismount until after the arrows were extracted. He was a man who never declined to take part in a fight. At the end of the battle there were only three Texians unwounded.
The next day Captain Williams of San Miguel came with ten or twelve men. Our force amounted to twenty-one men, and we followed the trail of the Indians. They had camped in a ravine in a dense thicket, and Captain Williams advised us not to attack them; as they would have greatly the advantage.
On July 5th, Judge Randolph, of Austin, Treasurer of Texas, came along. We told him of the men wounded the day before, and he allowed us the use of his ambulance to haul them to Burleson's ranch.
In order to ascertain the exact loss of the Kickapoos, Leroy W. Trimble went to Santa Rosa, Mexico. He there learned that in the fight of July 4, 1865, the Indians lost six killed and thirteen wounded. The Kickapoos had no idea Trimble knew anything of the affair.
From an article in the first number of the Quarterly I copy the following sentences: “About 1630, Maria de Agreda, a Spanish missionary lady, spent some years among the wild tribes of Texas. None of her writings are known to be in existence, but she is quoted by Father Mazanet, in 1692, he having seen her report to the `Father Custodian of New Mexico.' In this quotation there is mention of the `Kingdom of the Theas,' showing that the same tribes then inhabited this country which we found two hundred years after.” 21
The writer seems to quote from a letter or report by Father Mazanet; yet there is evidently a misreading of his authority, as there are two misstatements in the quotation as given. For the venerable Sister Maria de Agreda was never in America in body, unless the story of her ecstatic visitation and conversion of the Xumanas be true. Nevertheless her works are extant, and some of them are to be found in the libraries of America. 22
Speaking of the Franciscan missions among the Pueblos of New Mexico, Dr. Shea writes:
“About the year 1622, in the Provincial Chapter of the Franciscan Order held in Mexico, the missions which had hitherto been under the care of a Commissary were formed into a Custodia, of which Father Alonzo de Benavides was appointed the first custos. The viceroy of New Spain thereupon authorized him to take twenty-six missionaries to New Mexico, their expenses on the way and their maintenance being paid by the king. But though the new custos entered his district with that number, death, sickness, and hardship soon thinned their ranks, and at the close of the year 1627 the king ordered the viceroy to send thirty Franciscan Fathers to New Mexico. [Cedula of November 15, 1627.]
“On the 4th of September, 1628, nineteen priests and two lay brothers of the order of Saint Francis left the City of Mexico with the newly appointed custos, Father Stephen de Perea; these were maintained by the king, and the nine others at the expense of the province of the Holy Gospel, all ready to meet toil and danger in the missions of New Mexico. [Perea, “Verdadera Relacion de la Grandiosa Conversion que ha avido en el Nuevo Mexico,” Seville, 1632.]
23“In 1630 Father Benavides was dispatched to Spain, to lay before the sovereign the consoling results of the missions which his zeal had established.
“At Chilili, the chief pueblo of the Tompiros, Father John de Salas founded a mission, which soon had six churches and residences. His zeal extended beyond the limits of that nation. Hearing of the Xumanas, a tribe similar in mode of life to the tribes already known, whose pueblo lay east of the mesa still bearing their name, and not far from the Salt lakes, this missionary about 1623 endeavored to bear the light of the gospel to them. To his surprise he found the Xumanas familiar with the Christian doctrines, and they declared they had been instructed in the faith of Christ by a woman. Her attire, as they described it, was that of a nun, and the missionary showed them a picture of Sister Louisa Carrion, a religious in Spain highly esteemed for her sanctity. The Indians declared that the dress was the same, but the lady who visited them was younger and more handsome. In 1629 Father Benavides resolved to found a mission among this interesting people, and he sent Fathers Perea and Lopez to take up their residence at the great pueblo of the Xumana nation, which he dedicated to St. Isidore, archbishop. When he subsequently returned to Spain, Father Benavides heard of Sister Maria de Agreda, and at her convent learned that she had in ecstacy visited New Mexico and instructed the Indians there. The Franciscan writers all from this time speak of this marvelous conversion of the Xumanas by her instrumentality as a settled fact. The ruins recently called Gran Quivira are, in all probability, the site of a Xumana town, the nation having been wasted away by wars and absorbed in some one of the New Mexican tribes. In 1632 Father John de Salas again visited the tribe, accompanied by F. Diego de Ortego, and finding the people friendly and disposed to receive the faith, he left Father Ortego there for six months.”
[F. Alonso de Posados, in Duro, “Peñalosa,” p. 57.]In a foot-note Dr. Shea adds: “The Ven. Maria de Agreda, daughter of Francis Coronel and Catherine de Arana, was born at Agreda, April 2, 1602, and after a childhood of great piety and reserve, at the age of sixteen took the veil in the Order of Poor Clares with her mother and sister, their house becoming a convent, her father with her two brothers making their profession in the Convent of San Antonio the same day. Her austerities were extraordinary, but they were supported by a solid and constant piety and virtue. Having become abbess at the age of twenty-five, she erected a new convent near the city, which is still standing. Through life she petitioned the Holy See to define clearly two points made de fide in our time—the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and the Infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiff. She died on Whitsunday, 1665, and the process of her canonization, begun soon after her death, has been revived in our day.” 24
Her Mistica Ciudad de Dios (The Mystic City of God) was condemned by the Sorbonne, and for some time the Holy See “permitted its circulation only in Spain and Portugal.” 25 “The discussions as to her revelations became quite a controversy, and occupy several volumes, but no final decision was ever made in their favor.” 26 “During her life she underwent a rigorous examination before the Inquisition, of which her long and clear answers are preserved. * * * Her correspondence with Philip IV. (“Cartas de la Ven. M. Sor Maria de Agreda y del Señor Rey Don Felipe IV., Madrid, 1885) show a clear political judgment, a firmness and decision, that the king and his counselors seemed to lack.” 27
As the History of the Conversion of the Xumanas will form the subject of a later article, these few notes may suffice to correct the misapprehension in Mr. Kenney's valuable paper.
NOTES AND FRAGMENTS.
The Killing of — Rogers. 28—Rogers came very near being killed by the Indians on the Colorado in February, 1839, at the same time with Mrs Coleman. When they appeared he and a young son of Mrs. Coleman were working in a field near the house. The boy was captured and was never recovered, but Rogers succeeded in making his escape. 29
In 1840 Rogers was stopping at Kenney's Fort on Brushy creek. This fort had been built by Thomas Kenney, 30 and was the first white settlement in that quarter. One day in the fall, when the buffalo began to come in, Rogers and a man named Ladd went hunting north of the place towards where Georgetown is now located. By and by they discovered some twenty Indians on the divide about half a mile away. Immediately they ran for timber, which was about four hundred yards distant. Rogers, being rather an elderly man, fell behind and was overtaken, speared to death, and scalped. This enabled Ladd to reach one of the dense thickets which then skirted the stream, but which have since disappeared. The Indians followed, but failed to find him. Then they unsaddled their ponies, kindled a fire, and ate in plain view of him as he lay concealed amid the undergrowth and afraid to stir. When they had finished eating, they prepared a target at the edge of the thicket, and much to his discomfort began to practice with their bows and arrows. Fortunately he was not struck, and as soon as they were gone he returned at once to the settlement, or fort, as it was called, and reported. Thereupon a party went out, hunted up the body of Rogers, and buried it.
The grave is now under the plow. As nearly as the place can be located, it is on the farm of John Palm.—J. W. Darlington, Taylor.
The Freedman in the Legislature.—On the adoption of the Constitution of 1868, my old body-servant, Tom, who had been faithful both to my father and to me, decided to run for the place in the legislature which I myself had previously held. In his speeches in the campaign by which he stepped into my shoes he said he wanted to go to the legislature in order to keep up the record of the family. He claimed to run as an “old member,” and his constituents knew no better. The whites were not permitted to vote, and he was therefore elected almost unanimously by the negroes and went from my old district to take my place as representative. As a member of the House he served his people as well as he knew how, drawing his eight dollars per diem from the treasury with the utmost regularity.
Tom was a good man; far better, in fact, than his white associates. I now have in my possession a bill of sale executed in the days of slavery for this member of the Texas legislature, and it is barely possible that he was not the only member that was ever bought and sold. But of this, let him that knoweth speak.—J. K. Holland, Austin.
The Attitude of the Spanish in Texas Towards the Indians.—The attitude of the Spaniard toward the Indian, which finds expression in the official documents of the time, and which undergoes significant changes during the century of Spanish occupation, is a romantic paragraph in our history. When the Spaniard originally came to Texas he was cautioned to win the Indian to allegiance by kindly methods. This was done in a large number of instances. But there was an air of superiority about the Spaniard, a tone of haughty condescension in his voice, when he spoke of the red infidel. He had little respect for the rover, and less for his institutions, and paid no heed to his prowess in battle.
What is here said, it should be noted, applies not to the Franciscan missionaries, but to the Spanish soldiers.
But this state of feeling came to an end with the massacre of San Saba in 1758 and the failure of the Parilla expedition to the Islas Blancas a few years thereafter. Previously the Indians had been spoken of as infidels. Now those of the North especially became “nuestros enemigos barbaros.” Later the coast Indians gave the Spanish trouble, and won for themselves the same appellation.
Toward the end of the eighteenth century there was another change, and the Indians became known as “nuestros aliados.” The Spanish, who wished no more enemies, were disposed to designate all of them as allies. This disposition was shown especially when the eastern boundary dispute arose. — W. F. McCaleb, Carrizo Springs.
Religious Belief and Customs of Texas Indians.—The one single instance known to me of faith in the Great Spirit as a being of supernatural power is afforded by a trivial incident, often related in the early days in Austin.
Flacco, a Lipan brave, was listening to a young lady who was drumming on the piano for his amusement. He was a faithful attendant on Captain Mark B. Lewis, and some one knowing it remarked that the young lady was the captain's favorite.
“Oh, no,” she said, “I am not tall enough.” She was, in fact, very short and remarkably fleshy.
“Yes,” said Flacco in his broken English, “you tall, too, but the Great Spirit”—here he raised his hand as if indicating the abode of the Being he mentioned—“he put his hand on head and mash you down.”
The ceremony of calling back the spirit of the dead was witnessed by a friend of mine who was present in a Tonqua camp at the death of one of the tribe. Without knowing the Indian custom of using on such occasions a secret name, he described the calling or rather shouting of the name as one of the most impressive things he ever heard. He regarded it as a kind of mourning ceremony, the constant calls being kept up all night.—Julia Lee Sinks, Giddings.
Texas in Poore's Charters.—Under this title appears in the Nation of September 16 the following communication:
To the Editor of the Nation:
Sir:In the matter relative to Texas in Poore's “Charters and Constitutions,” there are some mistakes, and a seriously important omission, which are very misleading to those who rely absolutely on the work. Under the title “Texas Declaration of Independence” is printed (Part II, pp. 1752-3) the declaration adopted November 7, 1835, by the consultation at San Felipe de Austin, in favor of the Mexican Federal Constitution of 1824, and against the revolutionary aims of Santa Anna. The foot-note (p. 1752), which says, “This Declaration of Independence was adopted by a convention which assembled at Washington, on the Brazos river, March 1, 1836,” applies properly not to “this Declaration, etc.,” but to the actual Texas Declaration of Independence, which was adopted March 2, 1836, and has passed by the name into history. The latter is, unfortunately, omitted altogether.
My attention was first directed to these errors by my colleague, Prof. John C. Townes.—George P. Garrison, University of Texas, Austin, September 3, 1897.
The Texas Magazine has been moved to Dallas, and is now published by William G. Scarff. Judge C. W. Raines' “Life of Santa Anna,” which was commenced in Vol. I., No. 1 of the Magazine, continues one of its attractions. Ex-Governor O. M. Roberts contributes to the August number an interesting paper on “The Shelby War.” “Personal Recollections of Stephen F. Austin,” written by Moses Austin Bryan for the information of his son, is one of the most valuable as well as readable articles of the September number. A prominent feature of the new Magazine is the emphasis laid upon woman's work in Texas and elsewhere. The Magazine has a fine field and a promising future.
The Midsummer Gulf Messenger (Houston, Texas) is a very creditable number. Besides the usual departments, the following are the leading articles: “Psychical Research,” a club paper, by Mrs. C. Lombardi, of Houston; “Women in the Music Teachers' National Association” (illustrated), by Caroline Somers; “Our Relations,” a story by Eleanor Kirk, editor of Eleanor Kirk's Idea, and author of “Libra,” and “The Influence of the Zodiac on Human Life”; “Will Allen Dromgoole as a Poet,” with frontispiece, by Louise Preston Looney. A popular feature of this magazine for some months has been the series of sketches of Women's Clubs in the South, with leading club papers. With this number it inaugurates a regular “Department of Women's Clubs,” and invites the co-operation and correspondence of club women everywhere, with a view to exchange of ideas on club work.
QUERIES AND ANSWERS.
The Quarterly will have, in every issue for which appropriate material is offered, a special department under the above title. Questions concerning Texas history are invited, and it is hoped that those prepared to do so will contribute answers.
Where was General Houston, and what was he doing, in the interval between the adjournment of the San Felipe convention, April, 1833, and the beginning of hostilities with Mexico, October 1st, 1835?
C. W. Raines.
THE AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION.
The name of the first life member, Mr. D. M. O'Connor, of Anaqua, Victoria county, has been placed upon the rolls of the Association. In a modest but enthusiastic letter expressing his interest in the objects of the organization, Mr. O'Connor encloses a check for fifty dollars, and adds a promise to give as much or more annually while alive and able. May he live long and be always as rich as he is generous.
Here is an example worthy of imitation. There are many men in Texas of abundant means who are greatly interested in having the materials for the history of the Republic and the State preserved. If these persons only knew how well it is possible to spend money given for the purpose, they would doubtless contribute enough to enable the Association to build up a valuable library at once.
The history of Texas can not be written until the materials are collected, but the work of collection necessarily involves great expense. A large proportion of the documentary sources of Texas history is to be found only in the archives of various cities in Mexico. Copies might be procured, but not without the expenditure of some money. The Department of Insurance, Statistics, and History has been charged with this duty; but its appropriations have been too small to attempt such work, and hitherto it has done nothing along that line. The Association could secure competent persons to do the copying at relatively small cost. All that is needed in order to begin is the funds.
The people of Texas have been too careless also about the historic materials that lie scattered through the State in private possession. The opportunity to gather and preserve them is being lessened continually by their destruction or loss through accident or neglect. But it costs something to gather them, even when the owners are willing to give them to the Association. Simply to locate them and ascertain their nature is often a matter of extensive correspondence and great trouble. This is most cheerfully undertaken by the Association, but in order to succeed it must have patriotic co-operation throughout the State.
Attention is therefore called to the circulars of inquiry which have been sent out by the Association. These have already elicited some information concerning old letters, papers, etc., which are owned by private parties, and it is hoped that still other replies will come in. The members especially, when they know anything concerning the existence or whereabouts of such matter, should communicate the fact at once to the Librarian.
Exhortation for the purpose of awakening interest in the work of the Association ought to be unnecessary. History like that of Texas is rare. In its color, its dramatic movement, and its instructiveness when viewed from the standpoint of political and social science, it has few parallels. These characteristics make it well worth preservation and study. To the genuine Texan, however, or the man that feel thoroughly identified with the State, one of the strongest motives to the cultivation of the subject will be found in his patriotism. Is it seeming, is it not discreditable to the people of Texas, that they should leave the collection of material for the history of the State to the great endowed Northern libraries, so that her own citizens, when they wish to learn of her past, must go to Boston, or New York, or Madison? Shall outsiders be permitted to lead in perpetuating the memory of the patient endurance and heroic deeds of those who builded the Republic? It is to be hoped that the neglect so long shown the graves of Houston and of Rusk will not be reflected in popular forgetfulness or disregard of their public services. Let Texas arouse herself for very shame, and begin at once the discharge of her filial duty.
Judge C. W. Raines has presented to the Association a scrap-book containing a copy of the diary of Dr. J. H. Bernard, which was printed in installments by The News, presumably the Galveston News. The diary covers a period from December, 1835, to March 27, 1836, and is one of the sources of our information concerning the Goliad massacre. Bernard was saved by a Mexican officer.
This scrap-book contains a few original letters, which are mostly of recent date; but it has exact copies of several very interesting documents in the John H. Moore papers. Among these are:
A letter from Andrew Ponton, alcalde of Gonzales, to the Committee of safety of Mina (Bastrop), dated September 25, 1835, and stating the fact of his refusal to deliver the cannon to the Mexican authorities on their demand.
An undated letter from D. C. Bassett, chairman Committee of Safety of Gonzales, to Col. John H. Moore, commander of the troops at Gonzales, communicating information of Indian outrages, and resolutions of the Committee to send coffee to the soldiers there, and to summon volunteers to their aid.
A letter from George W. Davis, secretary Committee of Safety of Gonzales, dated Gonzales, September 25, 1835, to Committee of Safety of Mina (Bastrop) and to Col. John H. Moore, asking for help in view of the refusal of the alcalde to surrender the cannon demanded by the Mexican authorities and the consequent danger from the Mexicans.
A letter from Stephen F. Austin to Committee of Safety of Gonzales, dated San Felipe, October 2, 1835, stating that volunteers are gathering to the help of the people of Gonzales. He says: “I think that Bexar must be cleared of the enemy before the present campaign closes. I expect five hundred men from theNacogdoches country.”
An order of Thos. J. Rusk, Aide-de-Camp, dated Headquarters above San Antonio, November 5, 1835, and addressed to James Bowie, Adjutant General, commanding a general review and inspection of the troops the next morning at sunrise.
A communication from President Lamar to Col. John H. Moore, dated August 31, 1839, authorizing the latter to raise troops for a campaign against the Indians.
The commission (undated) of Col. John H. Moore as commander of volunteers for a campaign against the Indians.
The commission of Col. Moore to effect an exchange of prisoners at the Waco Indian village, dated January 16, 1843.
The act of the Texas Congress providing for the collection and conveying of Indian prisoners to the Waco village, dated January 9, 1843.
A letter from Col. John H. Moore to General Castro, dated September 12, 1840, asking the latter to bring twenty or thirty of his Indians and join the former in an expedition against the Comanches.
Mrs. Sinks' own account of the recovery of the remains of the decimated Mier prisoners, and the Dawson men, and their burial at La Grange in 1848.
A letter from Edward Manton to Mrs. Sinks containing an account of the Dawson fight, in which he took part.
Some interesting recollections of early days in Texas, told by old settlers.
Several of the narratives are illustrated with drawings by Mrs. Sinks.
The more interesting and valuable contents of the Wilson Scrap-Book are as follows:
-
The commission of Wm. F. Wilson as quartermaster of the second regiment, second brigade Texas Militia, dated Washington, Texas, June 20th, 1843, and signed by Sam Houston.
-
Mrs. Wilson's certificate of membership in the Texas Veteran Association, signed by Moses Austin Bryan.
-
A collection of badges, five in number, worn at reunions of the veterans between 1879 and 1889.
-
The commission of W. F. Wilson as sheriff of Galveston county, dated Houston, July 10, 1838, and signed by Sam Houston.
-
A call by W. F. Wilson for volunteers to form a company of rangers which he was organizing to enter the Confederate service, and a list, dated Winchester, Va., July 5, 1861, of those agreeing to join.
-
The commission of W. F. Wilson as captain in the Virginia volunteers, dated May 8, 1861, and signed by Gov. John Letcher.
-
A Confederate States 6 per cent bond for $100.
-
The passport of W. F. Wilson from Castle Perote, in Mexico, to Vera Cruz, dated August 25, 1844.
-
Three letters written by W. F. Wilson, one dated Headquarters Texas Army, May 16, 1837; another, Castle Perote, April 22, 1844; and the third, New Orleans, October 10, 1844.
-
A letter from Col. John C. (“Jack”) Hays, dated Oakland, May 21, 1877.
-
A letter from Jefferson Davis, dated Mississippi City P. O., August 10, 1877.
-
The muster roll of the Galveston Volunteers, William F. Wilson, Captain, dated September 8, 1839.
-
A letter from G. Clinton Frailey, Commissary Subsistence, Texas Army, dated Texana, July 8, 1837.
-
The commission of William F. Wilson as Indian agent at the Omaha Agency, dated June 5, 1858, and signed by President Buchanan.
-
A pamphlet of twelve pages containing the reminiscences of Mrs. Wilson.
-
A considerable number of clippings from old newspapers relative to various subjects.
The relics in this collection were enumerated in the last issue of the Quarterly. The collection, however, contains a real treasure in a miscellaneous lot of old newspapers printed between 1846 and 1857. As will be seen from the list given below, there is no series among them, and not more than two consecutive issues of the same paper; but the various numbers were selected with reference to their historical importance, and each contains something of great value, as a letter from Houston, or Rusk, or Jones, or other matter of the kind. This number of the Quarterly contains a letter from Houston on the subject of Annexation, which is reprinted from one of the papers.
This gift was obtained through the kind offices of Mrs. Dora Fowler Arthur, Secretary William B. Travis Chapter, Daughters of the Republic.
The list is as follows:
-
The New York Weekly Globe of March 15, 1851.
-
The Galveston Weekly News of September 15, 1857.
-
Five numbers of the Texas Ranger (Old Washington), dated respectively January 16, 1849; March 9, 1849; October 8, 1851; August 23, 1856; August 29, 1857.
-
Six numbers of The Civilian and Galveston Gazette, with the respective dates: August 14, 1847; November 6, 1847; December 18, 1847; August 17, 1848; December 7, 1848; May 31, 1849.
-
The Southwestern American (Austin) of February 4, 1850.
-
The Weekly Dollar Democrat (published at Louisville, Ky.) of September 22, 1855.
-
Two numbers of The Western Texian (San Antonio), with the respective dates December 29, 1848, and January 12, 1849.
-
The Lavaca Journal of January 14, 1848.
-
The Henderson Democrat, June 27, 1857.
-
Three numbers of The Weekly Union (Washington, D. C.), dated respectively July 14, 1849; December 17, 1849; March 15, 1851.
-
Two sheets of different numbers of the same, the one issued about June, 1847, and the other about November, 1849.
-
Two numbers of The Tri-Weekly Union, the one dated March 17, 1846, and the other December 29, 1846.
-
The Texas Republican (Marshall) of June 29, 1849.
-
Two numbers of The Texas Banner (Huntsville), one dated October 21, 1847, the other May 26, 1849.
-
Four numbers of The Texas Democrat (Austin), all belonging to the year 1846, and dated respectively January 21, January 28, March 11, and December 16.
-
Two numbers of The Weekly National Intelligencer (Washington, D. C.), one of May 18, 1844, the other of May 5, 1849.
-
The daily issue of the same for December 25, 1846.
-
Two numbers of The Mississippian (Jackson), one of October 6, 1848, and the other of March 9, 1849.
-
The Semi-Weekly Star (Washington, Texas) of July 11, 1850.
-
The Lone Star and Southern Watch Tower (Washington, Texas) of April 5, 1851.
The amendment to the constitution of the Association proposed by the Executive Council at the June meeting has received the affirmative votes of more than two-thirds of the membership, and has therefore become effective. This amendment makes the Professor of History in the University of Texas ex officio Librarian and Recording Secretary, and changes the title of the Secretary and Treasurer as originally fixed to Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer.
I. Honorary Life Members.
The Constitution of the Association provides that “Persons who rendered eminent service to Texas previous to Annexation may become Honorary Life Members upon being recommended by the Executive Council and elected by the Association.” At the meeting on June 17, 1897, all persons who participated in the battle of San Jacinto, or in previous campaigns during the Texas Revòlution, were made Honorary Life Members. A few additional names were also put on the list by special vote. The list given below is incomplete. Corrections, additions, etc., should be sent to the Corresponding Secretary. Honorary Life Members receive all publications free; they pay no dues.
Ex-Gov. P. H. Bell —, S. C.
Jackson Berry, Esq. Callahan County.
S. R. Bostic, Esq. San Saba.
Mrs. Andrew Briscoe Houston.
Hon. Guy M. Bryan Quintana.
Joel Bryan, Esq. Velasco.
Col. John S. Ford San Antonio.
Joseph Highland, Esq. Leander.
J. M. Hill, Esq. Austin.
Mrs. Anson Jones Houston.
John Karner, Esq. Limestone County.
Alfred Kelso, Esq. Gallinas.
Nat Mitchell, Esq. San Antonio.
George Petty, Esq. Brenham.
Robert Price, Esq. Johnson City.
Hon. John H. Reagan Palestine.
Ex-Gov. O. M. Roberts Austin.
Mrs. Julia Lee Sinks Giddings.
J. F. Sparks, Esq. Rockport.
J. L. Standifer, Esq. Elgin.
Alfred Steele, Esq. Limestone County.
William P. Tindale, Esq. Eastland.
John Tom, Esq. Leakey.
J. W. Winters, Esq. Big Foot.
Capt. W. P. Zuber Iola.
II. Fellows.
The Constitution of the Association provides that “Members who show, by published work, special aptitude for historical investigation may become Fellows. * * * The number of Fellows shall never exceed fifty.” The dues are five dollars per year:
Mrs. John Henry Brown Dallas.
Hon. Guy M. Bryan Quintana.
Lester G. Bugbee, Esq. Austin.
William Corner, Esq. San Antonio.
Prof. H. F. Estill Huntsville.
Col. John S. Ford San Antonio.
Judge Z. T. Fulmore Austin.
Judge R. R. Gaines Austin.
Prof. George P. Garrison Austin.
A. C. Gray, Esq. Houston.
Mrs. Fannie Chambers Gooch Iglehart Austin.
Ex-Gov. F. R. Lubbock Austin.
Mrs. Anna J. H. Pennybacker Palestine.
Judge C. W. Raines Austin.
Hon. John H. Reagan Palestine.
Ex-Gov. O. M. Roberts Austin.
Mrs. Julia Lee Sinks Giddings.
Mrs. A. V. Winkler Corsicana.
Hon. Dudley G. Wooten Dallas.
III. Life Member.
D. M. O'Connor, Esq. Anaqua.
IV. Members.
Judge F. E. Adams Cleburne.
Mrs. Dora Fowler Arthur Austin.
Casey Askew, Esq. Tyler.
H. G. Askew, Esq. Austin.
William H. Atwell, Esq. Dallas.
William Aubrey, Esq. San Antonio.
Mrs. Charles S. Austin San Antonio.
D. The. Ayers, Esq. Galveston.
Hon. J. W. Bailey Gainesville.
F. B. Baillio, Esq. Cleburne.
Hon. F. W. Ball Fort Worth.
Miss Betty Ballinger Galveston.
W. W. Barnett, Esq. Houston.
Prof. W. J. Battle Austin.
Prof. R. L. Batts Austin.
Hon. J. A. Beall Waxahachie.
Dr. E. P. Becton Austin.
A. H. Belo, Esq. Dallas.
K. A. Berry, Esq. Cleburne.
Judge S. R. Blake Bellville.
Mrs. I. M. E. Blandin Houston.
Judge Joseph Bledsoe Sherman.
Dr. Milton J. Bliem San Antonio.
Dr. E. A. Blount, Jr. Nacogdoches.
Miss M. Eleanor Brackenridge San Antonio.
Hon. George W. Brackenridge San Antonio.
Miss Florence R. Brooke Austin.
Prof. S. P. Brooks Waco.
V. L. Brooks, Esq. Austin.
Mrs. Edward M. Browder Dallas.
J. Alleine Brown, Esq. Austin.
Miss Lizzie C. Brown Dallas.
Miss Marion Taylor Brown Dallas.
R. L. Brown, Esq. Austin.
T. A. Brown, Esq. Austin.
Judge T. J. Brown Austin.
Dr. W. H. Bruce Athens.
Judge Beauregard Bryan Brenham.
Guy M. Bryan, Jr., Esq. Bryan.
Miss Hally Ballinger Bryan Quintana.
Miss Lucy P. Bryan Velasco.
Perry Bryan, Esq. Quintana.
W. H. Burgess, Esq. El Paso.
A. S. Burleson, Esq. Austin.
Dr. Rufus C. Burleson Waco.
Hon. Bryan Callaghan San Antonio.
Prof. Morgan Callaway, Jr. Austin.
Hon. J. M. Carlisle Austin.
L. A. Carlton, Esq. Hillsboro.
Dr. Wallace Carnahan San Antonio.
Miss Mignonette Carrington Austin.
Dr. B. H. Carroll Waco.
R. L. Caruthers, Esq. Sherman.
Miss Lilia M. Casis Austin.
M. L. Chapman, Esq. Temple.
Hon. A. Chesley Bellville.
Mrs. Florence Anderson Clark Austin.
Hon. George Clark Waco.
Hon. Horace Clark, Jr. San Antonio.
Capt. James B. Clark Austin.
Hon. William Clemens New Braunfels.
William R. Clement, Esq. Houston.
Miss Octavia Clifton Austin.
J. R. Cloud, Esq. Wharton.
Hon. John H. Cochran Sweetwater.
Hon. T. B. Cochran Austin.
George W. Coleman, Esq. Waxahachiè.
Judge W. E. Collard Austin.
William Cooper, Esq. Brookshire.
Charles Corner, Esq. Austin.
I. J. Cox, Esq. San Antonio.
Mrs. Lucy Sherman Craig Houston.
Hon. M. M. Crane Austin.
F. C. Cross, Esq. Luling.
Gov. C. A. Culberson Austin.
Mrs. Ella Dancy Austin.
Mrs. Lucy A. Dancy Austin.
J. W. Darlington, Esq. T