CHAPTER IV

ATTITUDE OF TEXANS TOWARD THE COLONY

When Victor Prosper Considerant, the founder of La Réunion, came to Texas for the first time in 1852 he evidently met with hospitality from all the people, as his reports show no feeling of having been treated otherwise. In fact, in his writings he frequently refers to the kindly interest in, and attitude of the people toward, his scheme of colonization; especially does he mention Captain Macy of the United States Army, and Major Merrill, Commanding Officer at Fort Worth. However, when he returned to the United States seventeen months after his first trip to Texas, he found conditions considerably changed.[1]

The first overtures he made to men of prominence after his return were very favorable. He says, "The cordial reception and warm support, moreover, which our first overtures have met with from many eminent persons in Washington--senators or representatives from Texas, former governors and etc., with whom I have had recently the honor to converse, tended to strengthen me in my confidence."[2] But the masses of the people of the South and of Texas, had during these seventeen months which had intervened between the first and second trips, been over-powered with one of those peculiar psychological phenomena which occur quite frequently in a nation. This time it was the Know-Nothing Party.

This party grew up almost overnight and became a strong force in the politics of the nation. The party was a secret organization which had as its principal theories the idea that the government of the United States should be in the hands of "Native Americans," that no one should be permitted to become a citizen until after a very long period of probation, and that Catholics should be excluded from all offices. The party gained its largest number of votes in 1854 and declined rapidly after that time, being dead in less than three years after its victories in 1854 and 1855. Such an organization, of course, could have very little welcome for a group of French socialists and, in the main, would be openly hostile toward them.

The rather sensitive and alert Considerant quickly sensed the change. He immediately issued a statement concerning the attitude of himself and his colonists in which he stated:

I by no means intend to criticize or to approve this political movement, or to pass judgment upon it in any manner whatever. God forbid that I should follow the example of those new comers who, having scarcely set foot on a great country where they find hospitality, freedom, and an immense field open to their activity, hasten to take part in its internal affairs, mixing themselves up in questions of which they cannot yet understand the first elements, speaking, judging and deciding, right or wrong, on all sorts of subjects, which demand long study and profound knowledge of things in order to be comprehended.

No! my friends and myself, I am authorized to say, are men of common sense. We do not come to America in order to enlist in parties, of which we know neither the principles, the traditions, nor the exciting causes.

It is undoubtedly our earnest desire to attain, as soon as possible, the dignity of American citizens. But we will patiently wait the time when the law shall accord to us this title of nobility (whatever delay it may prescribe us to-day or establish to-morrow). We hold this title in high esteem, sufficiently to understand that the law, before conferring it on foreigners, should require them to become worthy of the privileges; and for ourselves, we do not pretend to see farther than the Americans into their own affairs. So far from aspiring to give them lessons of political conduct, we know that on all questions of this nature they are our superiors and masters, and it is our part to place ourselves on the seat of instruction. We feel ourselves far more urgently called to cultivate the earth, to erect buildings, and to establish various branches of industry, workshops, and schools, than to swell the ranks of any political party, to deposit our votes in the ballot box, or to place ourselves in either a scale of the political balance in the United States, Know-Nothingism, and Anti-Know-Nothingism--American Democracy Whiggism, Abolitionism, Pro-Slaveryism, with all the other isms of the same nature, are as yet to us only words expressing ideas, interests, and principles on which we are not ashamed to confess our ignorance, and to declare our perfect incompetence. All these questions, we think, are essentially American, concerning Americans alone, and in which no foreigner can reasonably take part until after he has been thoroughly Americanized; and,--this is not the work of a day.[3]

He expressed no fear of the consequences that Know-Nothingism would have on his scheme. On the other hand, he analyzed the movement from a political and social viewpoint and said nothing but good would come out of it if it were conducted in a proper way. He had been told that the party had as a cardinal principle the exclusion of all foreigners from the domains of the United States, but through reading and investigation he found out the true position of the party, namely, that it did not particularly desire to exclude foreigners but to increase the time of their residence within the United States before conferring political rights upon them. Their civil rights were not called in question. Considerant believed the causes for the rise of this party to be the following: (1) accumulation of slums in larger cities causing indigent people to become numerous; (2) lowering of wage scales by incoming immigrants; (3) the possibility of these indigent new citizens forming a political block that would destroy American principles of government; (4) fear of the religious affiliations of these immigrants of whom practically all were Roman Catholics.[4]

Considerant either was a novice in his judgment of American political attitudes and was mistaken concerning the essential results of the Know-Nothing Party on foreigners, or he was showing masterful diplomacy. It seems the former was the case. He always esteemed the American people very highly, ascribing to them far more love of liberty and toleration than they possessed. It seemed absolutely impossible to him that the Americans, steeped in democracy, would deny newcomers a small piece of the vast uninhabited wilderness in which to live, no matter what form of democracy they might profess. Then too, Considerant trusted the masses, and like Jefferson, believed that eventually justice and right would triumph if the people were permitted to decide the issues of government. However, he was to learn that the hard-working American of 1853 whom he had met on the frontier and in the cities was a different type of man from that of 1855 when agitated by political leaders seeking votes to control the national government. He met opposition from men from whom he expected help and especially from the newspapers.

The attitude of the papers of that day toward his project ranged from the position of vigorous opposition to that of active support. The _Texas State Times_ and the _Austin State Gazette_ were the ones most actively engaged against the colony. The proximity of these papers to the capitol, where those interested in land speculation, railroad grants, and other forms of private privileges came to press their application, perhaps accounts for some of the opposition, but both papers had on their editorial staffs men favorable to the Know-Nothing Party, and furthermore, the highly intellectual reputation of the French colonists excited the prejudice of the writers. The _Dallas Herald_ and the _Northern Standard_ were the two papers most favorable toward the colonists; also the _Galveston News_ took a favorable attitude. Outside of Texas the _New York Tribune_ became one of the prime movers in support of the colony, while the _Washington Sentinel_ (Washington, D.C.) was hostile to the socialists. The opposition based its objections to the colony upon the following four points: first, socialism, as such; second, the alleged opposition to slavery on the part of the colonists; third, dislike of foreigners; and, fourth, Considerant's high intellectual training, and his request for a subsidy of land in Texas for his colonists.

In regard to socialism, the _Texas State Gazette_ in its issue of February 17, 1855, says:

We are always pleased to have industrious immigrants come among us. Plenty of work can be found by mechanics and laborers, and there is room in all our towns for more enterprising merchants and business men. There is one class, however, that we are opposed to, and have no disposition to hold out to them inducements to settle among us. This class is of that Propagandist school which in France and in parts of the United States, has and is seeking to sap the foundations of society. The socialist desires to destroy individual rights in property; and, if he is not a very intelligent and moral man--a rare thing,--we may have in him a neighbor who will rob and plunder us whenever he can get the chance; for he holds it as a primary principle in his creed, that no individual has a right to accumulate property for himself, and all above what is necessary to sustain him belongs to the rest of society.... Again, the socialist is an _abolitionist_ everywhere. He would not be less opposed to slavery by living in Texas than in France or in Ohio. It is part of his creed. Now, we are told that John Allen, of Ohio, and Mons. Victor Considerant, propose bringing out from France to western Texas a colony of socialists. This move, for the purpose of building up a sect opposed to our political institutions, may well be regarded with jealousy, and the founders may rely upon it that they will not be suffered to tamper with our institutions. The whole principle of colonization, where men of a peculiar caste in religion or politics seek to array themselves together in particular sections of the country, both as landholders and factionists, is at war with all the elements of society, and cannot be carried on without creating bitter and unrelenting prejudices and animosities among our native citizens. We note this advent of socialism in Texas as foreboding us no good; and we wish them to have a fair understanding before they reach our soil, that as a political sect, our whole people are against them.[5]

The editorial just quoted was apparently read with wide interest all over Texas and the United States. Considerant, himself, read the article in New York and made a reply to the criticism; the _Washington Sentinel_ (Washington, D.C.) entered a long editorial in its column in support of the stand taken by the _Texas State Gazette_; and, as a further indication of interest, the writers of the editorial in the _Gazette_ received numerous letters praising them for the position which they had taken against the socialists.[6] The _Washington Sentinel_ stated that no paper had been more earnest in defending the rights of naturalized foreigners and in insisting upon the supremacy of the constitution than it had, but there were certain interferences that even it could not and would not submit to, and this interference was socialism.[7]

On June 2, 1855, the _Texas State Gazette_ again called the attention of the people of Texas to the serious danger which confronted the citizens of the state by permitting the socialists to establish themselves among the people. In an article, "The Socialist in Texas," the paper declared:

We have had enough discussion of the principles of Socialism from Greeley, Brisbane, and other fanatics and abolitionists, to know what Socialism must be in Texas, and how it will finally end.

When men get tired of the glorious institutions of our republic, there is something wrong with them, themselves, radically. They are certainly good enough to protect us in our life, our liberty and pursuit of happiness. Whatever may be their _new views_, they are at least not the class of men to do a state any good. We have had occasion before to allude to the importation of foreign Socialists into Texas, and the opinions we have expressed have certainly undergone no change. We believe them to be a mischievous element of population, and did we not believe that their wild theories would not long stand the test of experiment, and would soon be abandoned, we might urge our objections more seriously than we have done.

In the same article was a letter from a man who signed himself J.L. from the city of Washington. The writer of the letter mentioned that he had seen a short article in a northern paper in which the attitude of the _Gazette_, as expressed in a former editorial, was very unfavorable to the "settlement of a colony of Fourierestes under the auspices of M. Considerant," in Texas. He appealed to the "Southerners of Texas, not to permit that band of lawless and unprincipled foreigners to settle in their midst," and listed reasons why his appeal should be heeded as follows:

1. That it is the purpose of the Socialists to overthrow all constituted government and establish instead a system in which the members would "follow the tendencies of their passions and inclinations regardless of any restraint of laws."

2. That they were opposed to the Christian code of morals as stated in the decalogue, because that would check their passional liberty.

3. That they were all infidels.

4. That they condemned marriage relations and wherever they dared to do so, "openly avow promiscuous intercourse of sexes, accordingly."

5. That they were abolitionists of the most vile stamp.

6. That they would divert individual property to their own peculiar organizations.[8]

Considerant answered these charges in a very dignified way in a pamphlet published in New York.[9] However, he was astonished at the attitude of the papers and asked, "why are we so precipitately attacked by persons to whom we are entirely unknown, and who have been informed of our projects only by vague rumors?" Why such an attitude could be held by people of a free land against Europeans fleeing persecution was a mystery to him; however, he sought to answer it on two grounds, namely, a crusade of private interest, and on the ground of ignorance.

In his answer the Texans were assured that the immigrants did not desire to leave the theatre of European struggles, to seek a theatre of other struggles in Texas. They came to Texas seeking liberty and peace and were seeking a place remote from civilization where the ideals of their society could be developed in peace and security. If such a place was not secured for them in Texas, they would be forced to seek other climes, either in North America or Central America, even though such a movement was repugnant to them as they had already selected Texas as their adopted home. Considerant derided the _Texas State Gazette_ in that it appeared to believe that the socialists were to make an assault on Texas and, as mere barbarians, invade and destroy it. Such an absurd idea! These gentle and civilized folk--more so than the Texans--were too mild-mannered barbarians to wish to harm or disturb anyone.[10]

Such a wrong implication seemed so foreign to the sympathetic nature of Texans that Considerant was inclined to excuse the attack on the ground of ignorance. There were two errors in the statement of the _Gazette_, he contended, one of fact and one of logic. The error of fact was that there were several kinds of Socialists, and two divisions of the Fourieristic type, one favoring private property and another opposing it. The larger group of Fourierists, especially the colonists coming to Texas, were those who believed in possession of private property. In fact, the leaders of the former group had carried on several extensive debates and had written articles against those favoring the abolishing of private property. The error of logic was that the paper reasoned from the assumption that because the immigrants did not believe in private property they would in turn rob and pillage their neighbors who possessed property. He stressed the fact that the men immigrating to the United States in his colony were men of honor and accomplishments and were not suddenly going to turn robbers and marauders. However, Considerant did not ask for any special forbearance and importuned the Americans for but one thing, namely to assure to the colonists the protection of their lives and the property which they hoped to acquire.

Nevertheless, in spite of such declarations, when the pamphlet reached Texas, perhaps in July or August of 1855, the attack of the newspapers became even more severe. The _Texas State Gazette_, in an article in which sarcasm rather than dignity was displayed, attacked Considerant personally. Of him it was said that he possessed the traits of a diplomat instead of those of a philosopher; that he was cunning and ingenuous rather than dignified and learned. His good face was presented to the Texans and his bad face was kept in the background, but his "supercilious airs" and "unabashed self-sufficiency" were evident to anyone reading the pamphlet. Fear of socialism seems to be the predominant note in the long editorial. In one place the editor says:

We would rather see the State a howling desert than witness the spreading waves of Socialism stretch itself over the Christian Churches and the Slave Institution of Texas. To hold out inducements to these Socialists is to take steps to make every part of the State where they may inhabit, undesirable for settlement to Southern citizens of other States, and as the Socialist increases, must we look forward to the repulsion and retirement of slave-holders. It is an excellent initiatory step for Northern Agressionists and may be flatteringly successful, if we lack the nerve at the present time to withhold our disapproval.[11]

The _Texas State Times_, in a more dignified and reasonable manner discussed the pamphlet. The writer referred to the work as "an ably written address to the American people upon the subject of European colonization in Texas."[12] But in a sarcastic vein it is shown how Considerant desires to better the condition of a "Heaven deserted state ... by the introduction of mechanical arts among its rude people, and designing to fruitfully occupy their leisure moments by illustrating the practical workings of diverse new and improved social systems." The editor further states:

The deep interest which this modern reformer manifests towards everything in America in general, and in Texas in particular, and the unselfishness with which he avows his willingness to bring his colony, with all their capital, ingenuity, industry, virtue, and vices, too, we suppose, and settle them in our midst, in consideration of a grant of our worthless lands, would excite our gratitude, if we were not convinced that quite a sufficiency of this description of better citizens reach our shores through the usual medium of emigration, without the aid of any special agent, and that European malcontents can spread the slow but certain poison of their obnoxious principles quite rapidly enough for the good of this country, when they come singly and in couples, without this wholesale importation.[13]

Again, it was the fear of dissemination of socialistic principles that stirred the writer to warn his fellow countrymen.

The dissemination of any set of principles antagonistic to an existing government, must inevitably decrease the strength and vigor of that government, be it democratic or monarchial, in the same ratio that these principles find defenders and advocates. Wherever doctrines, however preposterous and destructive to society, have been broached by men of mind, they have never failed to find disciples.[14]

The principles which Considerant was advocating were such, the writer said, as the "vilest Red Republicans of France have repudiated, in the most licentious and stormy days of that wavering government." Even though the whole scheme was to be experimental it would be very much better, so the writer thought, that such experiments should be done by "our own people rather than by a deputation of French philosophers" whose attempts to "half-sole and heel-tap society in days gone by" had ended in miserable failure.[15]

There were papers, however, that did not fear socialism and were anxious to see the experiment tried in Texas. The _Galveston News_ even thought that the experiment might discover or explain certain social regulations that would bring to humanity "greater happiness and a higher degree of civilization." But in such statements there existed in the mind of the writer a certain pessimism for he says, "Discord, which creeps into all human organization, may cause it to riot in infamy."[16]

Even so, the colony was not sufficiently large or powerful to cause any serious dangers to the republican institutions of Texas. _The Dallas Herald_ favored the colony because of the profit which would come to the city of Dallas and the surrounding country from the manufactories which Considerant proposed to establish.[17] The fact, though, that the men who were to form the colony were republicans who had been expelled from France because of their sentiments struck a responsive chord in the minds of the Dallas editors, and caused them to issue a general welcome to the colonists and express hope for their success. _The Standard_ said:

For ourselves only, we say that we think the immigration of such a class of persons as he describes would be eminently beneficial to the State, and tend to its enrichment, by the introduction of Manufactures, without which no State is truly independent, and free from tribute in an eminent degree to other States. The agriculture, manufacturing and commercial elements all confined in a body politic, give it great power as the result of great resources--Texas has the elements for the successful development of all three, to which may be added mining in coal and iron.[18]

The support of the _New York Tribune_ perhaps did Considerant more harm than good, as the Southern papers were suspicious of anything with which Greeley was connected. The mere fact that Brisbane and Greeley favored the colony was enough to convince most people in the South that the colony was organized for the sole purpose of establishing Free-soilers and Abolitionists in the slave states.

In fact, all the papers, even those supporting Considerant, were unanimous in their condemnation of the anti-slavery sentiment as expressed by Considerant. The _State Gazette_ on October 13, 1855, says:

It is a matter of deep solicitude to all Southern men, that these Socialists should know in advance the opinions and views of our people. We are far from being fit subject for the transcendental theorists of the North and of France. The thousand isms of the day find no congenial soil in the South, and besides this, the hatred of the Slave Institution, cherished by these Socialists and avowed openly by them in our State, must only the more remind us of our duty and awake us to action.

It was said in the same issue that socialists were to be emptied upon Texas by the thousands, and already that their surveyors were working through several counties in which the colony had secured nearly every available piece of ground. Rumor had it that the slave-holders who lived near these people thought it opportune to dispose of their slaves, and many Southerners were disposed to leave their homes and seek plantations farther West.[19] Such statements apparently were wide of the mark as investigation fails to produce a single protest from people in the vicinity of the colony; such exaggeration merely represents the usual effort of some editors and newspapers to carry their points in any sensational issue and should not be given credence here. The incongruous statements of the _Washington Sentinel_ are amusing:

We have a great country, interminable in extent, blessed with every variety of climate, and adapted to every kind of production. We have vast uninhabited wilds that resound oftener with the tread of the buffalo or the howl of the wolf than with the step or the voice of the man. We have room for the oppressed, the enterprising, the industrious and the patriotic of every clime and country. They are welcome. We would say to them, come--our arms are open to receive. Come ... and be naturalized into our free American brotherhood.

Yet when an effort is made to plant amongst us, and that, in a slave State (Texas) a colony of French Socialists and abolitionists (they are endorsed by the _New York Tribune_) then we demur, most positively and absolutely.

We want no abolition _plantations_ or _colonies_ here, whether they are foreign or native. We want no European ideas of liberty. We carved out, by our own strong arms, the independence of this country, and we want nothing of foreign origin infused into our system.

But Socialists are system-makers, government builders, and communists--they are political incendiaries and propagandists, and would not only plant themselves and their social institutions upon our soil, but would endeavor insidiously and furtively to erect the system of government which they espouse, on the same soil. Their system is altogether different from our system.... Besides, it is an abolition system. It is useless for M. Considerant or M. Anybody else to attempt to disguise it. They want to get a foothold here, and they will adopt any means to do so. It is vain for M. Considerant to attempt to hide his purposes under the rubbish of pedantic and scholastic phrases. Those purposes are plain and palpable.[20]

The above article was based largely upon Considerant's declaration against slavery contained in his pamphlet, _European Colonization in Texas_, in which he stated that "The evil of slavery should not be increased by an addition of peculiar grants." Considerant well understood that the slavery question would soon drive the North and South into war if it were not settled by some scientific formula rather than by the hot heads of either side. Personally, he wanted to see slavery abolished gradually. He was influenced in this position, no doubt, by Brisbane, who suggested as early as 1840 that a special investigation should be made into all slavery or involuntary servitude to determine whether it was economically sound to have such an institution. If it were found to be economically unsound or unjust to the men so penalized, then some plan should be worked out scientifically for its abolition.[21] The charge of many of the Southern papers that Considerant had been influenced by Greeley, Brisbane, and other liberal leaders of the North in the formation of his American political attitudes cannot be gainsaid. However, the wide political and basic fundamentals of his concept of social and political relations were European, and that of the extreme liberal school. Slavery was certainly against all his doctrines concerning the political and social equality of man, but he was not a fanatic on the subject as were many of the Northern and Southern leaders.[22]

_The State Gazette_ referred to his statement of his position on slavery as "traitorous" and said that he was merely using "honeyed words" to cover up his "pernicious dogmas." The prejudiced attitude of mind of the editors is evidenced in the editorials in the _Gazette_. They state that Considerant's term "social relation of humanity" meant nothing more than "nigger good as white man" and that his proposal for a "scientific and peaceful progress" of the settlement meant "the development of this fact in the legislature."[23] Seemingly conscious of the fact that many of Considerant's arguments and pleas were unanswerable by reasonable arguments, the papers resorted to sarcasm and appealed to the prejudice of an inflamed public sentiment. It was not mere neutrality on the slavery question that was demanded; it was actual participation in the agitation for permanence of the institution.[24] Such activity would not have been possible from the colonists' viewpoint because Considerant had distinctly declared against any active participation in the politics of the nation until the members of the colony had become thoroughly conversant with its problems, nor would such participation have been acceptable to the South which was at this particular time largely dominated by the "Know-Nothing" attitude toward the foreigner.

During the time that Considerant was trying to establish his colony in Texas, Albert Brisbane, his chief lieutenant in the United States, was having a very difficult time in New York. On one occasion the police, urged on by the usual anti-socialist complaint of that day, raided a meeting at which Brisbane was speaking. The _New York Tribune_ in describing the scene said:

Nervous young gentlemen, destitute of hats, and bemoaning rent gloves and departed overcoats, dashed about to and fro in confusion--In Broadway, around the doors of Taylor's saloon, and thickly packed up the sidewalks of nearly the distance of a block, stood an expectant crowd, who had got the wind of the fun that was to be heard of above, and who watched with intense eagerness the egress of one victim after another in the relentless grasp of the Police. As the female members of the club emerged from the doors, like a flock of frightened sheep chased by wolves, the Police followed closely in their tracks, the crowd raised loud shouts,--"Make way for the Ladies;" "Here they come;"--"Three Cheers"--"Let us see them"--"Hoo-Raw for the Free Lovers," etc., etc., etc.[25]

The attitude of the legislature of Texas is very interesting. This attitude, perhaps, can best be explained by the study of a petition presented by Considerant and by the report of bills in the House and the Senate. Ignorance on the part of the legislators of the purposes and policies of the colony is astonishing, and this ignorance existed in spite of the fact that Considerant had done everything to inform them of his purpose and policies. At one time he distributed to the members his pamphlet on _European Colonization in Texas_ which went into detail concerning the proposed colony. Savardan, in his book, states that this distribution was the greatest mistake made by Considerant because he took a neutral stand on political problems, especially on slavery. This, Savardan explains, was the very thing that Texans, especially the legislators, did not want. Conditions and circumstances in Texas demanded partisan politics and not neutrality. One must of necessity be for or against slavery, building of railroads, immigration, and similar movements.

In December, 1855, Considerant presented a petition to the House of Representatives and the Senate setting forth his appeal for grants of land in Texas.[26] In this he said that in returning to Texas for the second time he found there had been considerable change: in the public sentiment toward foreigners; in that all vacant lands in the north part of the state had been taken up by settlers, located on by speculators, or reserved to the Pacific Railroad Company. Thus the advantage which he clearly foresaw in 1852 for his colonization company and which he put forth as inducements in his reports to his friends to settle in Texas, had practically vanished, leaving him in a peculiar situation. The reaction to such a situation in Europe and among his friends had been such as to endanger the project of colonization. In consideration of these factors he asked if "a grant, for instance of two hundred sections of land, made to the Colonization Company, would exceed the measure of the favor" which the state would feel disposed to extend to the company as encouragement and compensation for the heavy expenses already undergone by the company in bringing settlers to Texas. So when he returned to present the above petition, he found public opinion aroused opposing his project.[27]

Considerant, thoroughly realizing this opposition to him and his colonists in Texas, attempted to answer the charges brought against him. In a letter to the governor of Texas, he said that certain persons "see only in our immigration an invasion of fanatics, enemies of property, of robbers, abolitionists," and that they "imagined that we came to this country with the intention of subverting her institutions and laws, to bring about the abolition of slavery, and to create a State within a State." Such charges were, according to him wholly unfounded, and could be charged only to "persons who had previously given unmistakable signs of mental aberration."[28]

Nevertheless, in spite of Considerant's pleading and earnest presentation of facts, the state legislature did not see fit to grant him lands which he had requested. This was due perhaps to the change of policy in regard to state lands which had been recently adopted rather than to any particular objections to the French colonists or their socialistic doctrines. Of course, as was shown by newspaper reports, the objection to the colonists was so great that no land would have been granted even if there had been no change of policy.

Even though Considerant and others of the colony labored assiduously for the grant of land and recognition of the colony, a bill permitting incorporation was all that they could achieve. On July 19, 1856, the Committee on Public Lands made the following report concerning the petition of the colony:

The Committee on Public Lands, to which was referred the petition of Victor Considerant, have had the same under consideration, and instructed me to report against the prayer of the petitioner; yet they have instructed me, in virtue of the fact that the petitioner represents a company with a large capital, and whose objects are to engage in manufacturing and other branches of industry, which it is believed will be of incalculable advantage to this country, to report a bill incorporating said company for the above purpose and recommend its passage.[29]

Later, on August 16, such a bill was introduced to "incorporate the European and American Colonization Society in Texas." Some one immediately moved to amend the bill by inserting Harrison County and substituting G. G. Gregg, W. Adair, W. M. Evans. The amendment was tabled. Still another amendment was offered to substitute thirty-three and one-third years for the one hundred years contained in the bill, which amendment was also lost. Mr. Dickson of Red River, when his name was called, arose and said,

I would like to know what this incorporation means to do. I don't see any proposition to do any particular thing. The bill just incorporates a body of men, without specifying for what purpose.

Now, I understand that this is a French Colony of Communists, and that those people there work for the leading men at about twenty cents a day, and are charged for their provisions, thus coming in debt at the end of every night.

Without having any explanation of what these people mean to do, and hearing these things charged against them, I vote No.[30]

The bill to incorporate finally passed the House by a vote of forty-eight to twenty according to the _House Journal_, but only forty-three to twenty according to the records of the _State Gazette_.[31]

In the Senate the bill suffered the same fate as to amendments. On August 25, one was offered which "provided, that this act shall not take effect or be in force until said Corporation shall (if they be foreigners) first file evidence in the State Department of their naturalization." Then another amendment,

Provided, that a majority of the directors of said company, and the President thereof, shall be residents of Texas, and that the principal office shall be kept in this State, where all writs and citations shall be served.

and then the third amendment,

Provided, that this act shall not be so construed as to entitle said company to the benefit of any law, granting land or money to any Railroad or Manufacturing or Colonization Company, nor shall it authorize the company to prohibit slavery in any territory occupied by them.[32]

The bill as amended was voted on and failed of adoption in the Senate by a vote of fifteen for and thirteen against, two-thirds being needed for its passage.

After the bill failed in passage, Senator McDade moved for a reconsideration of the vote, but it was laid on the table for future consideration.[33] Later, on August 29, Bryan called upon the Senate to reconsider the vote on the colony, and was successful in winning the passage in the Senate, fifteen to seven.[34] Then, on the following day the bill was reported in a list of bills enrolled--having been signed by the speaker of the House and the President of the Senate and being ready for the governor's signature.[35]

On September 1, 1856, the bill to incorporate the "American Colonization Society in Texas," was signed and thus became a recognized act of the State Legislature. Thus, in spite of the prejudice created by the newspapers the colony was legally established in Texas, but the outcome was very discouraging to those who had expected success.