Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
January 1, 1893
Fort Worth Gazette
Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas
What is this article about?
Editorial defends Senator Mills against San Antonio Express criticism for allegedly breaking a promise to support Judge Clark's Democratic gubernatorial nomination, arguing evidence is insufficient and questions the nature of any promise made.
Clipping
OCR Quality
95%
Excellent
Full Text
MILLS' FIDELITY
The San Antonio Express assumes in its criticism of Senator Mills published elsewhere with this issue, that it has been proved the senator violated his promise to assist Judge Clark in his race for the Democratic nomination for governor. Such an assumption is not warranted by the evidence at present before the public, which consists mainly of charges by partisan supporters of Judge Clark.
In law and in morals there are two kinds of promises, one involving an obligation, and the other resting upon benevolence. If, for instance, Mr. Mills had persuaded Judge Clark to become a candidate, inducing the latter to make the race in order to further his own senatorial aspirations, and when his own fish were fried, withdrew from the contest, it goes without saying that he would be culpable. If, however, the proposal to unite the two candidacies came from the other side and the real purpose was to use the senator's popularity to help along the canvass of the Waco man, we should say the promise, if any, was without consideration and was voidable at pleasure.
Two questions are yet to be answered before the public can pass intelligent judgment upon the issue raised concerning the fidelity of Mr. Mills:
Did Mr. Mills give what could properly be termed a promise?
For what reasons and under what circumstances did he give it?
The San Antonio Express assumes in its criticism of Senator Mills published elsewhere with this issue, that it has been proved the senator violated his promise to assist Judge Clark in his race for the Democratic nomination for governor. Such an assumption is not warranted by the evidence at present before the public, which consists mainly of charges by partisan supporters of Judge Clark.
In law and in morals there are two kinds of promises, one involving an obligation, and the other resting upon benevolence. If, for instance, Mr. Mills had persuaded Judge Clark to become a candidate, inducing the latter to make the race in order to further his own senatorial aspirations, and when his own fish were fried, withdrew from the contest, it goes without saying that he would be culpable. If, however, the proposal to unite the two candidacies came from the other side and the real purpose was to use the senator's popularity to help along the canvass of the Waco man, we should say the promise, if any, was without consideration and was voidable at pleasure.
Two questions are yet to be answered before the public can pass intelligent judgment upon the issue raised concerning the fidelity of Mr. Mills:
Did Mr. Mills give what could properly be termed a promise?
For what reasons and under what circumstances did he give it?
What sub-type of article is it?
Partisan Politics
What keywords are associated?
Senator Mills
Judge Clark
Democratic Nomination
Political Promise
Fidelity
Gubernatorial Race
Partisan Charges
What entities or persons were involved?
Senator Mills
Judge Clark
San Antonio Express
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Defense Of Senator Mills' Fidelity Regarding Promise To Judge Clark
Stance / Tone
Defensive Of Mills, Questioning Evidence
Key Figures
Senator Mills
Judge Clark
San Antonio Express
Key Arguments
Assumption Of Promise Violation Not Warranted By Current Evidence, Mainly Partisan Charges
Distinction Between Obligatory Promises And Benevolent Ones Without Consideration
If Mills Induced Clark's Candidacy For His Own Gain, He Would Be Culpable
If Proposal Came From Clark's Side To Use Mills' Popularity, Promise Voidable
Questions Remain: Did Mills Give A Proper Promise? Under What Circumstances?