The Governor's Hounds: The Texas State Police, 1870–1873

Epilogue

Addressing the opening of the Democratically controlled Thirteenth Legislature two months before the Lampasas massacre, Governor E. J. Davis knew his militia system and the State Police were about to be eliminated. One of his twomajorgoalsduringhistenurehadbeento“restrainthatlawlessnesswhich always unfavorably distinguished our people, but had become shockingly intensified by the habits taught our young men in military camps.” Reviewing his measures to “suppress lawlessness,” Davis had established the militia for “preservation of the peace,” which gave him the authority to “suspend the laws within disturbed districts.” Compelled to do so on three occasions, the knowledge that the governor had this power prevented additional upheaval.1 Moreover, the State Police had “relieved the State of multitudes of bad characters,” but Davis did not think their services could, as yet, be dispensed with. During their thirty-month existence, they had cost the state a total of $408,274.12, or an annual cost of $163,309.64. In this same time span they had arrested 581 individuals charged with murder, another 760 for attempting to kill, 1,748 with various felonies, and several thousand who had committed lesser offenses. They had also recovered and returned considerable amounts of property to owners, of which no accounting had been kept. While performing their duties, eleven policemen had been slain and a large number wounded. Their overall efficiency had been impaired because of the depreciation of state warrants by which they were paid. This amounted to about half their regular pay.2 Epilogue EPILOGUE 171 Davis admitted that after the resignation of Chief of Police James Davidson on November 4, 1872, it was discovered his accounts were incorrect. An examination revealed a shortage of close to forty thousand dollars. This had been a rather recent development in Davidson’s character because an earlier accounting by the legislature suggested his budget was in order. The comptroller had disregarded Davis’s instructions of March 18, 1872, which forbade the “drawing of money from the Treasury without vouchers filed, showing lawful disbursement.” Ignoring this admonition, Davidson was furnished “facilities for running up the greater part of this amount” and embezzled the money that should have been paid to claimants. Davis hoped the sum would soon be made up.3 When the Thirteenth Legislature convened in January 1873, the major agenda focused upon eliminating the militia system and the State Police, which Davis had created in 1870. Personal animosities and legal confrontations compounded the solons’ decision. Although both the Senate and the House desired to abolish the militia completely, Davis vetoed the bill. The intended law, the governor correctly observed, was “beyond the power of the Legislature,” as it violated both the state and the United States constitutions. In fact, if the politicians had not provided for such an organization it would be imperative that they immediately do so. But since they had already done so the repeal was “null and void.”4 Davis provided the legislators with an alternative to complete elimination by suggesting that they simply excise three sections of the original law. Those provisions had initially dealt with the State Guard, the power to declare martial law, and the trials of offenders who were initially responsible for the suspension of the laws in the first place. Although the Daily State Journal cautioned the members to “go slow in the tearing down business,” as it was “easy to tear down, but hard to build up,” the legislators were on a mission. They responded to Davis’s suggestion and repealed the three obnoxious portions of the 1870 legislation, amended two other sections, and abolished the Special Police.5 The day after Davis sent his message to the legislature defending his militia system and, significantly, the State Police, the House took the initiative in moving to eliminate the police completely and was quickly joined by the Senate. The conservative press added its support for police disbandment, declaring that in “rare instances” it might have “rendered service to the cause of law and order, yet upon the whole, we are convinced that the existence of the police force, has been an exciting cause of crime.” Using the specious argument that desperadoes took advantage of the “popular prejudice against” THE GOVERNOR’S HOUNDS 172 the force, the press insisted that these desperadoes would “resist arrest to the death, when they would yield at once to the sheriff or constable.”6 In his veto of the House bill to abolish the...