the citizens of the place. Fifteen or twenty tribes of hostile Indians made incursions at will, and the colonists were compelled either to go without protection or protect themselves with any means in their power.
In the new Constitution it was proposed by Branch T. Archer, a distinguished son of Virginia, that there should be a clause authorizing the State of Texas to create a bank, or banks. Mexico had no banks. The principal men of the convention supported Archer's proposition to place a clause in the Constitution authorizing banks. Houston opposed it. He was in principle opposed to any system of banks, except such a system as brought its power within very narrow limits. In the infancy of the State he could not hope for a sound banking system, as human cupidity and stringent times would be stronger than constitutional provisions. Policy also, in Houston's opinion, forbade the institution of banks. Their creation, or the power to create them, would be an innovation upon the legislation of the General Government. If Texas wished or hoped for success as a distinct State she must defer to the prejudices and institutions of Mexico. Jealousies and suspicions should be avoided. Mexico would find in the bank clause of the Constitution a valid reason for the rejection of the Constitution. Thus reasoned Houston with great eloquence and ability. He succeeded not only in causing the article in dispute to be stricken out, but another clause inserted, forbidding the establishment of all banks and banking corporations for a period of ninety-nine years, which clause was adopted by a large majority in the convention. Gen. Houston's policy, in these early struggles of Texas to obtain the full prerogatives of an American Commonwealth, was profoundly wise. He was cool, calm, and deliberative in every emergency; even in the strangest events of his life, an imperturbable discretion did not desert him. Upon all the questions of State or National policy Houston's sagacity saw the end from the beginning, and placed him on the side which ultimately won success. The influence which chiefly moulded the action of the convention, and toned the political feelings and events which succeeded, was the result of the wise counsels and shrewd speeches of Gen. Houston. It is supposed by some of the ablest patriots of Texas that had Houston's wise counsels always governed the Republic or the State, the independence of Texas would have been secured with slight loss of life or treasure. If all Houston's associates had been as truly noble in purpose and spirit as Stephen F. Austin, whose share in the great work of freeing Texas from tyranny and establishing it as a State was hardly inferior to Houston's, much sacrifice and suffering would have been spared to the people. Austin, failing to secure the ratification of the Constitution, determined to
