A thumb-nail history of the city of Houston, Texas, from its founding in 1836 to the year 1912

Front matter

GENERAL SAM HOUSTON

Patriot and Statesman. The hero of San Jacinto, in whose honor

the City of Houston is named

Chapter One

Why Houston Was Founded — When Incorporated — First Mayor of Houston — Various Administrations — Reconstruction Days — Huge City Debt — What the Commission Is Doing Today — Full List of Houston's Mayors.

A fact not generally known nor appreciated is that Houston is the result of a disagreement between the Aliens and the Harrises. There was no serious quarrel or anything of that sort. They differed about land matters, with the result that the Aliens, instead of joining the Harrises in their efforts to build up the already established town of Harrisburg, came five miles by land and about sixteen miles by water further up the bayou, and laid the foundation for the rival town, which was destined to become the greatest city in Texas and one of the greatest in the Southwest.

Now, as a matter of fact, there was no good reason for the new town. The location at Harrisburg was ideal and had many advantages, naturally, that Houston had to create artificially. There was, to begin with, sixteen miles of very crooked and hardly navigable bayou to be overcome in order to reach Houston, while the new site had absolutely nothing to compensate for this disadvantage.

However, there was an element injected into the controversy that helped the Aliens wonderfully in carrying out their scheme. Santa Anna's soldiers

I showed up just at the critical moment and burned Harrisburg. Before the Harrises could recover from the blow, and while their town still lay in ashes, the Aliens acted and not only had their town laid out, but were actively engaged in selling town lots to settlers. Not much progress was made during the first year, however, and there was not much of a city in evidence and scarcely more to indicate where that city was to be, for Governor Frank Lubbock, in his memoirs, gives an amusing description of his search for the town, even after he had reached and passed the foot of Main street. He came to Houston on the first steamboat that ever arrived here and it took four days to make the trip from Harrisburg to Houston. That being the pioneer trip an immense amount of work had to be done to clear the stream of sunken logs and overhanging trees. There was plenty of water, but there were numerous obstructions in and over the channel. After that first boat there was little or no delay and before long there were other boats that came to Houston, and in a year or two there was a regular service established between Houston and Galveston.

The question of transportation was one of the most serious with which the early settlers had to contend. Transportation by land was not only difficult, but actually dangerous, for there were hostile Indians and predatory bands of Mexicans ever on the watch for unwary settlers. There were no roads, ordinary trails being the only guides for the e/?.G.cMLLEH ;o%dHDE^ OS

S^

Houston. P^

Mom£R Of qI.K &Ad c^ZLENMD cAL^.S, I, cMLEK \BP/ON££M d^ PATRIOT OF HOUSTON W/Ff OrS.L.ALLUN, traveller, and therefore when communication was established with the outside world by water from Houston, it was looked on as a blessing, since it saved many miles of difficult and dangerous travel. The bayou soon became popular and Houston sprang at once into the greatest prominence as a receiving and distributing point. It is remarkable that Houston should have had all those advantages, naturally, in the early da5^s and then after the lapse of many years she should still retain them through the commercial activity and business foresight of her citizens.

During the first eighteen months of the new city's existence there was little accomplished aside from perfecting the plans and arranging the divisions of Houston, for there was not much more of a city than a name and some surveyed streets and lots until late in 1837. By then th town began to show some life and activity. It is true that the city was more like a military camp than anything else, for it was composed largely of tents, with here and there a small log cabin. During '1837 there was a large storehouse built at the corner of Commerce street and JNlain and at the same time work was begun on the "Mansion House," Houston's first hotel. This was located on the corner now occupied by the Southern Pacific offices.

But it was not until 1838 that Houston took on genuine city airs. That year an election was held to decide whether the city should be incorporated or not. The result was an affirmative vote and the same year the Texas Congress granted the City of Houston a charter.

Having become a chartered city it was necessary to elect a mayor and board of aldermen. Unfortunately all the records of the city have been twice destroyed by fire, but tradition and the oldest inhabitants declare that Dr. Francis Moore, Jr., was the first mayor of Houston. Now there is really no good nor substantial reason for doubting that Dr. Moore was the first mayor, and the question is brought up in this way so as to give place to a doubt introduced by Maj. Ingham Roberts, who has made a close study of all that relates to the early history of Houston. Major Roberts, in the History of Southeast Texas, of which he was one of the editors, publishes a list of Houston's mayors and gives the honor of being the first to James S. Holman. The Major gives as his authority for doing this, a notice published in the Telegraph of Sept. 29, 1837, calling an election to fill vacancies caused by the deaths of two aldermen, which notice was signed Jas. S. Holman, "Mayor."

Major Roberts is a most careful student and accurate writer, and yet one is constrained to believe that a serious error has been committed by himself or by the paper publishing that notice. In the first place, Houston was not incorporated until a year after the date of that notice and, therefore, could not have had a mayor or board of aldermen. In the next place, James S. Holman was clerk of the Eleventh District Court from February, 1837, until

1842, and it is not likely that he could have been mayor of Houston at the same time. As a matter of fact he was clerk of the court at the very time that notice was published, as the court records show. The matter is given space here so as to bring out all the facts for the guidance of future historians.

When the Moore administration took office, its first act was to extend the city limits, which to that time had been the Bayou on the north. Walker street on the south, Bagby street on the west and Caroline on the east. The limits were extended so as to embrace nine square miles. This was done in order to increase the taxable area and to include within the city limits many citizens who had built residences just beyond the old city lines. The nine-mile area was maintained many years, or until the city fell in the hands of the "Carpet-bag" Republicans appointed by E. J. Davis during reconstruction days. These found it necessary, in order to create more plunder, to increase the taxable area, so they extended the limits so as to embrace twenty-five square miles. When the Carpet-baggers were turned out of office by the home people who had regained control of affairs, the limits were reduced to nine square miles. That was in 1874, and until 1903 no change was made. But by that time the city had so extended beyond its limits that an increase was demanded in justice and fairness to all, so the area was fixed at sixteen square miles. A remarkable feature is that since those limits were fixed, the city has again far outgrown its bounds.

so that a very large number, perhaps 15,000 or 20,000 nominal citizens of Houston are living outside the city limits. Aside from fixing the city limits and placing some pine trees across the streets, so that people could get across from one corner to another without bogging down in the mud, there appears to have been nothing accomplished by the Moore administration, or by that of G. W. Lively, the second mayor. It was reserved for the Charles Biglow administration, in 1840, to take the first step towards permanent public improvement. That year a contract was let for the erection of a market house and city hall on Market square. That old market was pointed to with pride for many years by all Houstonians. It was really a pretentious building for it had length, if not height, being only onestory high. It extended from Preston to Congress and on the Congress side it was two-stories high, the upper floor being used as a city hall, while the lower one was devoted to a city jail or "calaboose" as it was called.

The market part was given over to the butchers and vegetable people, who had stalls arranged on each side, while a broad alley extended down the entire leng-th of the market. There was no floor, only the bare earth serving for that purpose. The building soon became famous for the number of rats that took possession of it. Perhaps, in no part of the world were there ever so many rats gathered together in a limited space as were found in that old place. However, it was a great improvement on conditions that had prevailed to that time, for the market vendors had been forced to do business in the open air, or under a dilapidated shed that some one had erected. There was a tent, not on the square, however, that was used for market purposes, but that was a private affair with which the city had nothing to do.

The old market house stood for many years and was finally torn down to make place for the famous market house erected by the Scanlan administration. The story of that famous building is worth telling. Mr. Alexander JNIcGowan had been elected mayor of the city in 1867, but was turned out of office by E. J. Davis, the "reconstruction" Governor of Texas, in August, 1868. Some other changes were made, but it was not until 1870, that Davis showed his hand by turning everybody out of office and appointing his own henchmen. T. H. Scanlan was appointed mayor and four ignorant negroes were made aldermen by Davis. Then the "plundering" began in real earnest, and by the time they got through Houston had a debt of almost two million dollars and had but little or nothing to show for it. It was no public spirit or local pride that gave Houston the finest market house in the South. Houston got the building finally, but Houston paid a fancy price for it. It was merely the opportunity to extend the loot field that lay behind the market that resulted in its final construction.

Having decided to erect a market house, plans were drawn, specifications made and bids were invited. Col. William Brady was the successful bidder at $250,000. He was backed by some New Yorkers. He agreed to take the city's bonds in payment, they to bear 8 per cent interest and to run twenty-five years. That part of the contract was all right, perhaps, but after actual construction of the building began, things began to show up that were never expected. Col. Brady built according to the plans and specifications, but when those were examined it was found that they contained no provision for blinds, some doors, and in one or two instances, for floors for the building. The whole thing was found to be merely an outline of plans and specifications, but Col. Brady claimed it was what he had bid on and he held the city strictly to its contract with him.

There was only one thing to do — issue more bonds, and that was when the city limits were extended, so as to take in more taxpayers. The tax area was increased, more bonds were issued, and before the market house was completed its total cost was $470,000 instead of $250,000 as originally contemplated. The building was insured for $100,- 000, but when it was burned down in 1876, the insurance companies refused to pay even that, and, after much haggling, finally agreed to restore the building, which they did at an outlay of only $80,- 000. The restored building was also destroyed by fire some years later, when the present magnificent building was erected.

A so-called election was held in 1872, and by importing negroes from the surrounding counties and obstructing the white voters, the Republicans were able to elect the entire city ticket and keep the same gang in office. Retribution was near at hand, however, for the next year the Democrats swept the State and elected CokeGovernor. In January, 1874, Houston was granted a new charter, by provision of which the Governor was authorized to appoint the city officials of Houston. Governor Coke lost no time, but turned the Scanlan crowd out of office. He then appointed Mr. Jas. T. D. Wilson, mayor, and also appointed a board of aldermen composed of respectable and prominent citizens. A few months later an election was held and all the gentlemen appointed by the Governor were regularly elected.

There was little accomplished by the new administration during their tenure of office. The affairs of the city were so badly tangled and the bonded and floating debts were so large that the city was absolutely without money or credit. Under conditions such as these it was not exj^ected that anything could be done beyond "standing off" clamoring creditors and answering court summonses, for the city was being constantly sued.

After holding office for one year the Wilson administration retired and Mr. I. C. Lord was chosen as mayor in 1875. He had all that his predecessor had to contend with, and in addition there came up the question of disposing of the interest the city had acquired, in some way, in the Houston East and West Texas railroad. The interest owned by the city was in that part of the road surveyed as far west as the Brazos near Bellville, but which had been abandoned and has never been built. There were suits and counter-suits and the whole question became very much involved. Finally the city sold its interest for $35,000 and went out of the railroad business for good. But it was a case of jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire, for so soon as it was known that the Lord administration had a little cash on hand the court house feature became aggravated and everybody was clamoring to get hold of it. Old notes, old and new claims, popped up from unexpected quarters and the situation became desperate. Mr. Lord held office for two years and then quit in disgust.

Mr. Wilson having had a two years rest was persuaded by the citizens to try his hand again. This was literally true for at that time a man had to be persuaded to take such an onerous office as that of the debt-burdened city. It required patience, honesty of purpose and fine executive and financial abihty to keep the affairs of the city going, even for a day, and those who were qualified to act were not anxious to do so.

The second administration of ]Mr. Wilson resulted in the establishment, or rather in the inauguration of the movement that resulted in establishing the water works here. Before that time Houston depended entirely on underground cisterns for its

COL. W. J. HUTCHINS

(DECEASED)

Prominent Citizen Banker and Merchant

of Houston

T. W. HOUSE SR.

(DECEASED

Founder of the Bank of T. W. House. A Pioneer

and Patriot of Texas water supply, both for drinking and for fire protection purposes. Soon after the beginning of his second term Mr. Wilson sent a special message to the council, drawing attention to the great need of water works. The city had no money to build such works, but was prepared and willing to deal most liberally with any private company or corporation that would undertake the work. Nearly a year later such a company was formed, and some months later, in August, 1879, the company actually constructed the first water works on the north side of the bayou near what was called "Stanley's brick yard," where they have remained ever since. The service, however, was abominable and pleased no one. The company built a dam across the bayou so as to shut off tide water and secure as pure water as possible from the upper bayou. It was totally unfit to drink and no one ever thought of using it for that purpose.

In the early nineties it was discovered that an abundant supply of the purest artesian water could be obtained anywhere in Houston, and the waterworks company sank several artesian wells. That gave Houston an abundant supply of pure drinking water. However, the stand-pipe was too small, or for some other reason the company claimed they could not supply the city with both drinking water and water for protection against fire, and every time a fire occurred they would pump bayou water into the reservoir, with the result that the water became unfit to drink for some time after every fire. The people complained, but that did no good. Finally, in 1906, under the administration of JNIayor

Baldwin Rice, the city purchased the plant outright, for $901,000, and since that time there has been no complaint nor any reason for complaint. This is the only public utility owned by the city, but its record has been a good one, so much so as to create something of a general desire that the city take over some others and run them in the interest of the people as the water works are now run. As one eviidence of how the people have gained by the change, it may be said that the old company was charging SOc per thousand gallons for water, but the city at once reduced this charge to 15c, employed more men to add to the efficiency, and has done all this without the loss of a cent of the taxpayers' money.

After serving two terms, Mr. Wilson retired and was succeeded by Mr. A. J. Burke. There was nothing accompHshed during this administration for the very good reason that nothing could be accomplished. Efforts were made to compromise the huge city debt, but the bondholders stood firm and nothing could be done.

When Mr. Burke's term expired, some of the leading men of Houston conceived a great idea. They determined to apply expert business methods and nothing else in settling the city's affairs. A committee, composed of the best business men of the city, waited on Mr. Wm. R. Baker and asked him to devote his superb financial ability towards solving the great financial problem which confronted the city. He, after some hesitation, consented to do so, but made it one of the conditions that he should name the men who were to serve as aldermen with him. This was granted and he named a number of the leading bankers, merchants and business men as his staff. There was no serious opposition to the ticket and it was elected by practically a unanimous vote.

When the city was turned over to those gentlemen, the bondholders became very confident. Before that they were growing uneasy, to say the least, for the people were becoming desperate and everybody was talking about throwing up the city charter and repudiating the unjust debt that had been forced on the city. However, when Houston was placed in the hands of such prominent business men and great financiers, doubt and fear disappeared, for the bondliolders knew that these gentlemen could not afford to be mixed up in anything such as repudiating a debt, therefore they became firm and insistent. Already something like repudiation had taken place, for the citizens had held an election and decided that not more than 50c on the dollar should be paid for the bonds. This action tied the hands of the Baker administration, of course, and they could do nothing, for the bondholders would not accept 50c on the dollar.

Towards the middle of the Baker administration a final effort was made. Mr. Wm. D. Cleveland and JVIr. J. Waldo, two of the aldermen, went to New York for a conference with the bondholders, who were showing an inclination to "listen to reason." After some discussion the bondholders agreed to compromise for 60c on the dollar and to take forty-year bonds, a new issue. The aldermen explained that the action of the citizens precluded their paying more than 50c. Then the bondholders made the following proposition: The compromise would be made ostensibly for 60c on the dollar, but really for 40c. A prominent Houston banker whose name they gave, Mr. Baker and Mr. Cleveland were to guarantee that the new bonds would be issued by the city and for doing this the bondholders would divide the difference between 40c and 60c with these three men and keep quiet about it. The aldermen returned to Houston, and ^Ir. Cleveland, Mayor Baker and the banker went over the proposition. Mr. Cleveland pointed out that the plan proposed offered the only solution of the problem and suggested that the three gentlemen draw up an agreement, together with a statement of facts, bj^ which the city would get all the bonds that were, ostensibly, set aside for themselves ; that this agreement be witnessed by reputable witnesses and locked up securely in a safe. The bondholders had said they would treat the matter confidentially. Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Baker saw the advantage to the city and were anxious to close the deal, but the banker was afraid and dreaded adverse criticism and discussion by the people who would know nothing of the truth of the deal until it was all over, so he refused to have anything to do with it and as the bondholders insisted on his taking part, the thing fell through and Houston lost the opportunity of compromising her debt on the most advantageous conditions that were ever offered.

With so many bonds out, some of them were in weak hands. These small holders, either willingly or unwillingly, parted with their holdings for about 35 cents on the dollar. The Baker administration was enabled to pick up a great many bonds in that way, but the large holders stood firm. Buying the bonds, as INIayor Baker did, reduced the bonded debt, of course, but it was borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, for at the close of the Baker administration the floating debt of the city was about $200,000 greater than when it went in.

Having tried expert business methods and failed, the people arose in their might and went to the opposite extreme. They turned out the financiers and put Mr. D. C. Smith and what was called a "short hair" board of aldermen in office. The labor ticket was elected triumphantly, and in electing these gentlemen, the citizens did a wise thing. When the news reached New York that the city had been turned over to the labor element there was consternation in the bondholders' camp. They could see nothing but repudiation and ruin ahead of them, and their greatest fear was that the debt might be repudiated before their agents could get here with offers of compromise. After some bickering, which served to delay action by the council if in no other way, the bondholders came to an agreement with the city by the terms of which the debt was compromised on a basis that permitted the city to make needed improvements and pay interest regularly on the reduced debt. Since that day the city has been free from great financial embarrassment.

It seems strange to say in one breath that Houston has the best and the most dangerous form of government that could possibly be conceived. And yet that is literally true. The form, as all know, gives almost absolute power to a few men chosen, not by wards as was done formerly, but by all the people of the city regardless of ward and sub-ward divisions. The advantages of this method are apparent, for the Mayor, or Chairman, and each Commissioner represents the whole city and not any particular part of it. Each is responsible to the whole people and not, as formerly, to that one part of it where he might chance to have lived and from which he was chosen by the votes of his friends and neighbors only. He owes no political debt to any single ward and it becomes his duty to legislate for the good of the city as a whole and not for any subdivision of it.

The dangerous feature is the power the commission form gives a few men. Should a dishonest or incompetent Board of Commissioners chance to secure election, the result might be disastrous before the people awoke to their peril and took steps to check it. Of course such a condition as that is very unlikely to occur, still there is a possibility of its occurring and in that one thing alone lies the danger.

The mere fact that there is danger in the form, assures its safety, for it puts the voters on their guard and they are more careful than ever they were under the old method, in selecting their servants, so that it is almost impossible for unworthy or incompetent men to be elected. If the commission had nothing else to recommend it, this placing the voters on their guard would be a sufficient indorsement of its merits.

The evolution of the Commission idea has been slow and tedious, and it is remarkable that it has taken great disasters to impress its merits on the minds of interested communities. Following the two great yellow fever epidemics of 1878 and 1879 in Memphis, Tenn., the people of that city found themselves bankrupt and forced to adopt the untried and desperate remedy of ceasing to be an incorporated city and becoming a taxing district under a commission. That was, as a matter of fact, the first time the commission idea was applied practically to the management and direction of municipal affairs. It was not until the great disaster at Galveston on September 8, 1900, that anything Hke a practical commission for the government of a city was devised. Galveston, by act of the Legislature, was granted a new charter which did away with the old mayor and board of aldermen and placed municipal affairs in the hands of five commissioners — a mayor, or chairman, a commissioner of finance, a commissioner of streets and alleys, a conmiissioner of water works, lights, etc., a commissioner of police and fire departments. These are all elected by the whole vote of the city and each commissioner is given full charge of his department and held responsible for its working. The other cormnissioners have the authority to overrule and veto any undesirable act of any one of their members, but this has never been necessary, for the abiUty and honesty of the men thus far elected by the people have been such as to render unnecessary the exercise of the veto power by the other commissioners. If argument were necessary to show the merits of the Commission form of municipal government, the success of that in Galveston would be all sufficient.

The success of the Galveston Commission attracted wide attention and in 1904 the plan was submitted to the voters of Houston and, they having adopted it, the next year a new charter was granted the city, under the terms of which Houston became a Commission city.

Houston's charter differs in many respects from those of Galveston, Dallas and other cities that have gone under commission rule. Its practical working is so well shown in an address delivered by Mayor Rice before the Chicago Commercial Club in December, 1910, that it may be well to take the following points from that address so as to best illustrate the commission:

"The essential differences between the old form of municipal government and the commission form are three," said the mayor. "The substitution of a smaller number of aldermen, elected from the city at large, in place of a large number of aldermen, elected from different wards or subdivisions of the city; vesting of a co-ordinate power in the mayor as in the city council to dismiss any officer of the city government, except the controller, at any time without cause, and the essential provisions safeguarding the granting of municipal franchises. Instead of a body of twelve aldermen, elected from

COL. CHAS. STEWART

(DEC EASED I Former Prominent Attorney and Member Congress different wards or subdivisions of the city, under the Houston system four aldermen are elected from the body of the city by the votes of all the citizens, in the same way in M^hich the mayor is elected. These four aldermen, together with the mayor, constitute the city council or legislative department of the city government. The executive power is vested in the mayor, but by an ordinance, for the administration of the city's affairs, a large part of executive or administrative power is subdivided into different departments, and a committee is placed over each department, and one of the four aldermen, nominated by the mayor, is what is known as the active chairman.

"The mayor and all four aldermen are members of each committee. The active chairman of the committee practically has control of the administration of the department, unless his views are overruled by the whole committee, but by the organization of the committees the active chairman does the work, to a certain extent, under the supervision and direction of the mayor, who is, in the last analysis, the head of each committee and the person in whom the executive power of the municipal government ultimately rests.