The Galveston Daily News. (Galveston, Tex.), Vol. 54, No. 182, Ed. 1 Sunday, September 22, 1895 Page: 4 of 16
sixteen pages : ill. ; page 23 x 18 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE GALVESTON DAILY NEWS. SUNDAY. SEPTEMBER 22, 1S95.
LAW OF THE CASE.
Justice Hurt's Opinion in the
Clark Habeas Corpus.
AUTHORITIES QUOTED
the
when
An Exhaustive Document Piainly De-
fining the Justice's Reasons
for His Opinion.
HISTORY OF LEGISLATION
Leadin? Up to the Enactment of the Stat-
utes in Dispute—Current Comment on
the All Absorbing Topic.
Dai *
pre- in
nppi : -
his Oi
Jmso C
Tex., Stept. 21.—Hor
ju.i"it ©i the court of « v
to-day handed down i.
^ on the habeas oofpu
a, imprisoned for prize tt--
and 17th instant.
■urinal
siting
vse df
hting,
It is
•'va
ft
heard on the 16th
as follows:
Ex-part*' Jt4sise Clark, on habeas lorpus.
On September 3, the county attorney
of Dallas ouniy tiled an information
against Tom .Cava,iaugh and Jess> Olarlv.
charging them with having unlawfully and
voluntarily engaged in a pugilistic encoun-
ter between themselves for money, and
upon the result of which money was bet
arul wagered, and to ste which an ad in
6)0« fee was charged. Upon the filing
iA\n Information a capias was issued
C&vanaugh and Clark were by the sheriff
of Dallas county arrested and confined In
the county jail.
On September (5, 1895. Jesse Clark pre-
sented to me his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, alleging that he was ille-
gally restrained of his liberty in the county
jail of Dallas county, and attached to his
petition a copy of the warrant by virtue
of which he was'arrested and detained.
The writ was granted and made returna-
ble before me at Dallas on the 16th day
of September. 1895.
At my special^request the attorney gen-
eral was present at the hearing of the
cause and represented the state. The in-
formation was based upon article IU05 of
the penal code as adopted by the last leg-
islature. The first section of this act pro-
vides that "any person who shall volun-
tarily engage in a pugilistic encounter be-
tween man and man . . . for money or
other thing of value, or upon the result of
which any money or other thing of value
Is bet or wagered or to see which an ad-
mission fee is charged, either directly or
indirectly, shall be deemed guilty of &• fel-
ony and upon conviction shall be punished
by a fine of not less than $500 nor more
than $lu00 and by imprisonment in the
county jail not less than sixty days nor
more than one year."
"See. 2. By ^pugilistic encounter.' as used
In this law, is meant any voluntary flght
or personal encounter by blows by means
of the fists, with or without gloves, be-
tween two or more men, for money or
prize of any character, or other thing of
value, or upon the result of which any
money or other thing of value is bet or
wagered."
Upon the hearing it was conceded by
counsel that the only question to be argued
or considered was whether or not article
1006 was now operative as a law in force;
if article 1005 Is not now in force the relator
should be discharged, but if said article is
in full force and valid, the prisoner should
be remanded to the custody of the sheriff.
In order that the contention of the par-
ties may be more readily understood i will
state the history of the legislation upon
the subject.
In 1889 the legislature passed an act im-
posing an occupation tax upon every fight
between man and man of $500 for each per
formance. In 1891 an act was passed pro
hibiting and punishing prize fights. This
last act repeals all laws In conflict with Its
provisions. In 1891 an act was passed au-
thorizing the governor to appoint three
commissioners learned in the law to revise
and digest the laws, civil and criminal, and
to embody the result of their labors in two
bills, one containing the entire body of the
civil statutes and the other the entire body
of statutes relating to criminal laws, both
to be properly Indexed, which bills the
commissioners were to report to the gov-
ernor on or before the meeting of the
Twenty-third legislature. It was made the
duty of the governor upon the receipt of
such bills and report to cause 500 copies to
be printed for the use of the members of
the Twenty-third legislature. The commis-
sioners reported to the governor as re-
quired by the act and the bills were pre-
sented, but no action was taken upon the
subject by the Twenty-third legislature.
The Twenty-fourth legislature took up the
subject. The two bills which had been by
the commissioners reported to the governor
were referred to a joint committee, who,
after making a great many amendments
alterations and additions, made their re-
port and recommended that the bills pass
•with the commitee amendments. As amend
ed the penal code passed the house on
April 16 and the senate on April 24, and
was sent to the governor on April 25, 1895.
The revised civil statutes passed the house
on April 19 and the senate on April 23 and
were sent to the governor on April 29, 1895.
Both bills became laws without the gov
ernor's approval. The penal code went into
effect on August 2, 1895. The revised stat
ntes by their terms went Into effect at
noon on September 1, 1895. The act of 1889
making prize fights a licensed occupation
Is Included in article 5049 of the revised civil
statutes, which went Into effect on Sep
tember 1, 1895. The act of 1891, to prohibit
and punish prize fights, is re-enacted as
article 1005 of the pennl code, which went
into effect on August 2, 1895.
The relator insists that he should be dis-
charged—first. because so much of article
5049 of the revised civil statutes as makes
prize fights a licensed occupation is repug-
nant to article 1005 of the penal code, and,
being tfhe latest act upon the subject, it
repeals article 1005; second, If this be not
so, then there being on the statute books
a penal law punishing prize lights and a
civil statute making such fights a licensed
occupation, the penal law is of such doubt
ful construction that it Is inoperative under
the provisions of article 6 of the penal
code.
Upon the part of the state it was In-
sisted :
1. That tJhe act of 1895, toeing incorporated
Into the revised civil statutes as part of
article 5049, and the act of 1891, being in-
eluded in the revised penal code as arti
cle 1005, are to be construed, not as new
enactments, but as continuations of the
original law
2. That in point of fact the act adopting
the penal code passed the legislature after
the act adopting the revised civil statutes,
and Vtas, therefore, the latest expression
of the legislative will.
3. That under the aot of 1891, appointing
commissioners to revise tlhe laws, the com-
missioners had no power to add to or to
emend, but that their duty was simply to
collate and arrange the laws in methodical
form, and that the legislature, in passing
•upon the work of the codlflers. was limited
t>y the provisions of the act of 1891 author-
izing the appointment of the commission-
ers, and that the legislature, in passing
upon the work of the codiflers, could not
add thereto; that any amendments, such
hs taking from or adding to the work of
the commissioners, would be new an
original legislation, which could only be
enacted in the manner prescribed bu-
ttons 35 and 36, article 3, of the const it u-
^ tion.
4. That fhe manifest intention of the leg-
islature in passing the penal code and the
revised civil statutes was not to pas.-
new system of laws, but only to rearrange,
collate and continue the old system.
In adopting the revised civil statutes the
legislature has declared what parts thereof
ehaii be continuation?. Section 19 or t'h<»
final title te as follows: "The provisions of
the revised statutes, so far as they are sub-
stantially the same as the statutes of th.s
utate in force at the time when the revised
statute* go into effect, or ot the common
law in force In this state at said time, dhall
■be construed as continuations thereof, and
not as new enactments of the same,"
In view of this p ain statutory provision it
shm'd be construed as continuation
oid laws, it s only necessary to a
whether or not said acts were in for
the revised civil statutes went int.) effect
September 1. 189,5. As before stated, the act
of 1891 pr. hfi .ring prize lights. in section 4.
repeals all laws and parts of laws In con-
tlict w.th said act. In 189G John I.. Su.livan
fi is prosecuted by inforni.uion for •unlaw.-
fully engaging in a performance of prize
fighting, an occupation taxable by law (act
of 1Sj*9> without first having procured a 'li-
cense therefor." He was convicted and his
punishment assessed at a fine of $>'. From
this conviction he appealed. April 19. US83,
the case was decided. Judge Simkins. in
delivering the opinion of the court, said:
"The prosecution is under the act of 1893,
which declares that an occupation tax of
$jih) -hail be imposed as a state tax upon
every performance where there Is a tight
br-sween man and man. . . . Tn.s law,
however, has been changed by the act of
1S91, which directly prohibits prize fighting
and declares same a felony, punishable by a
fine of not lets than $50»> nor <m re than
$1009 and confinement in the county jail not
'less than sixty days nor more than one
year. The effect of this act was to repeal
so much of the act of 1891 as permitted an
occupation tax to be charged on fights be-
tween man and man . . . and tais con-
vet ion-being upon a repealed 1: w. the Judg-
ment is reversed and the cause Ui-tnlss-vi."
(Sullivan vs. the State, 32 Tex. Critn: R>p.,
w. ^
Here was an effort in 18itt to enforce the
act of 1889. The court of last resort in
such cases decided more than two years
before the revised statutes were entit led
tturc the act of 18X9 had been repealed by
t)ie act of 1S91 and would not enforce it.
.If this be so, and about Its correctness
there can be no question, so much of the
act of 1889 as Imposes an occupation tax
tfprin prize tights was not in force when the
revised civil statutes went into effect, and
consequently, under the plain provisions of
section 19 aSo-»■ t<ired, can not be on-
sfrued as •• .nuatton of the act of 3889,
ut must be rea.i;de«' is new legislation,
the fourth s 'ction of the act of 1S91 repeals
all laws and parts of laws in conflict with
he act. Mr. Sutherland says, "When
there is inserted in a statute a provision
kvlarlng a repeal of all Inconsistent acts
and parts of acts there is an assumption
that the new ru e to some extent is re-
pugnant to sortie law enacted before. There
a. repeal to the extent of any repug-
nancy, but no further. This is sometimes
tossed with express repeals." (Suther-
land Stat. Con., section 117. >
But the effect of a repeal is the same,
whether it is accomplished by express
ernis or results from necessary irrtpliea-
ton. (2.'> Am. and Kng. Ene. of Law. page
4!$.> \\hat, then, is the effect of tne re-
poet of the act of 1889? "The effect of re-
pealing statute is to obliterate the repealed
statute us completely as if it had never
been passed. It must be considered as a
law that never existed, except for the pur-
pose of those actions which were com-
menced, prosecuted and concluded while it
was an existing law." (Musgrove vs. V.
a'Yui M. railway, 50 Miss., 677; Calkins vs.
•State,. 14 Ohio St. Hep., 231,)
If such is the effect of the repeal of
ich of the act of 1889 as levied an occu-
pation tax upon fights between man and
man,' is it not perfectly understood that
this part of the act of 1889 was not in
force when the revised civil statutes went
into effect and therefore can not be con-
strued as a continuation of t he-actof 1889?
But that part of the act of 1SS9 now under
ii^cussion is In the revised- statutes; after
having been declared repealed for, more
than two years it is re-enacted by the leg-
islature and can be regarded in no
other light than new legislation. Mr.
Sutherland says: "Where tw<j statutes in
pari materia originally enacted at differ-
ent periods of time are subsequently in-
corporated in a revision and re-enacted in
substantially the same language, with the
design to accomplish the purpose they
were originally intended to produce, the
times when they lirst took effect will be
ascertained by the courts and effect will
be given to-that w hich was the latest dec-
laration of the will of the legislature if
they are not harmonious. An existing
statute is not to be considered- as original
because It Is embodied In a revision and
therefore is not to be construed on the
theory that none of its provisions have
been in effect prior thereto. The appear-
ance of such a statute In the form and
body of a revision has no other effect than
to continue it in force." (Sutherland on
Stat., Con., sec. 161.)
It is manifest that this author is speak-
ing of statutes In force at the time of the
revision,'for he says in section 134 of his
work on statutory construction: "A re-
peal is not rendered inoperative by a re-
enactment when they are not simultane-
ous, where there is an interval of time
after the repeal takes effect before the re-
enaetment goes Into operation."
Upon this subject Judge White quotes
With approval the following language from
the supreme court of Massachusetts: "in
terms the whole body of the statute law
was repealed, but these repeals went into
operation simultaneously with the revised
statutes which were substituted for them,
with such modifications as were intended
to be made by the revision. There was
no moment when 'the repealing act stood
In force without being replaced by the
corresponding provisions of the revised
statutes." (.Walker vs. the State, 7 Court
of Appeals, 259.)
I ne'd not ar.d do not question the cor-
rectness of the rule laid down by Mr.
Sutherland, and while it is applicable to
the act of 1891, it has no application what-
ever to the act of 1889. And why? Because
the operation of the act of 1891 had never
for a moment been suspended. When it
was re-enacted as article 1005 of the penal
code its continuity had not been broken
for an instant. The act adopting the code
and repealing the act of 1891 were simul-
taneous. When one ceased to operate the
other became effective. How is it in refer-
ence to the act of 1889? The provision in
question was not inforce when the revised
civil statutes were adopted. It had been
declared repealed two years before the
revised statutes were enactedi Its contin-
uity had been broken. Certainly it can
not be that this act had been continuously
in operation from Its passage in 1889 until
its re-enactment as a part of the revised
civil statutes. Unless it was, the rule laid
down by Mr. Sutherland has no applica-
tion. (Fullerton vs. Springs, 3 Wis., 592;
State vs. McCall, 9 Neb., 303.) *
When did the penal code and the revised
civil statutes respectively go into effect?
A correct answer to these propositions de-
termines which is the latest law and the
last, expression of the legislative will.
Upon the part of the state It Is insisted
that the civil statute passed the legisla-
ture one day before the penal code passed.
Let us see. The penal code passed the
house April 16 and the senate April 24: the
civil statutes passed the house April 19
anil the senate April 23. But at this stage
has either bill passed the legislature? I
ray not. Section 15, article 4 of the consti-
tution says: "Every order, resolution or
vote to which the concurrence of both
houses of the legislature may be necessary,
except on questions of adjournment, shall
be presented to the governor before It shall
take effoct s'hall be approved by him, or
being disapproved shall be repassed by
both houses." Section 114 provides that
every bill which shall have passed both
houses of the legislature shall be presented
to the governor for his approval. If he
approves he shall sign it, but If he disap
proves it he shall return it with his objec-
tions to the house in which it originated.
If any bill shall not be returned by the
governor with his objections within ten
days (Sundays excluded.) it shall become a
law in like manner as If he had signed it.
. . . These constitutional provisions make
the governor a part of the lawmaking
power of the state. Upon this subject the
supreme court of New York says: "What-
ever the authority touching the enactment
of laws with which the governor Is clothed
shall be called. It is of the same general
nature with that which is exercised by th»
members of the two houses. He is to con
sider as to the constitutionality, justice and
public expediency of such legislative meas
ures as shall have been agreed upon by the
two houses by the ordinary majorities and
be presented to him, and he is to accord or
withhold his approbation according to the
result of his deliberations. This is plainly
the function of a legislator." (The People
vs. Bo wen, 21 N. Y., 521.)
The supreme court of California say
"In approving a law the governor is not
supposed- to act in the capacity of the ex-
ecutive magistrate of the state, whose duty
it is to see that the laws are properly exe-
cuted, but as a part of the legislative
branch of the government." (Fowler vs,
Pierce. 2 Cal., 173.)
The penal code was presented to the gov-
ernor April 25 and the revised civil stat
utes April 29, !S95. Both bills became laws
without bis approval, and Mr. Sutherland
says: "When no other time is fixed a stat
ute takes effect from the time of Its pass-
age—from the date of the last act neces-
sary to complete the process of legislation
and give a bill the force of law. When ap-
proved by the executive the act of approval
is the last act and the date of it is the
date of the passage of th<* act. If pa«se^
after a veto the dat« or the final vote is
the date of passage. When a bill becomes
a law by the non-action of the executive,
under constitutional regulations, the non-
action of the executive Is a quasi approval,
not complete until the lapse of the
wouHd seem that in order to determine ! prescribed for his affirmative action under
whether the act of 1889 making fights be- , the given conditions." (Sutherland on stat.
tween man and man a licensed occupation, con., sec. 104.)
And the act of 1S91 inhibiting prize tights, | Where a bill is presented to the governor
and he neither approves it nor returns it
with his objections it becomes a law at
the expiration of the ten days during which
the governor had to consider H. (McNeil
vs. Commonwealth. 12 Bush. 732.)
Where a statute is declared to take ef-
fect from and after Its passage it takes
effect at the very moment of its approval
by the governor. (The People vs. Clark,
I Cal.. 4o6.>
The date of the president's approval of
the bill is undoubtedly the date at which
it became a law. (Gardner vs. the Collect-
or. 6 Wallace. f»04.)
The attorney general earnestly insisted
that the priority between the two acts is
to be determined by the dates at which
they passed the two houses of the legis-
lature. and in support of his contention re-
fers to the ease of the South walk bank vs.
Commonwealth, (26 Penn., state, 446). 1 do
i t understand that case. There the legis-
lature on the 9th of March passed an act to
rein.-:ate a section and extend the char-
ter of the Farmers and Merchants' bank.
The thirteenth section of the act regulated
the tax on bank dividends and applied to
the several banks of the state. The bill
was sent to the governor on the same day.
On the 14th of March the legislature
passed another act to provide a more ef-
fectual mode of collecting taxes in cer-
tain counties. The seventh section of the
latter act supplied the thirteenth section
of the act passed on the 9th of March and
the eiehth section expressly repealed the
thirteenth section of the a vt of March 9
and declared that henceforth the said thir-
teenth sectivm shall not be deemed as a
part, or portion of the act of March 9. The
latter act was sent to the governor on the
Hth of March. Both acts were pending be-
fore him at the strme time. On the 15th of
the same month he signed the latter ant
and so informed the two houses. On the
fifth he signed the act of March 0. The court
hfld that the legislature had the right to
repeal section 13 of the act of March 9
while the bill was in the hands of the gov-
ernor. and by approving the act of March
14. while the a t of March 9 was still in
his hands, he vetoed the thirteenth section
of the act as effectually as if he had re-
turn. I the bill with his objections. All the
branches of the law-making power, the
senate, the house and the governor, con-
curred in enacting the law that revoked
the thirteenth section previously passed.
After this was done the thirteenth sec-
tion was no part of the act In the hands
of the governor. The court further held
•that the governor had no power to rein-
state the abolishtd section by afterward
signing the bill. While the circumstances
of this ra*e are .peculiar, the point really
involved was the power of the. legislature
to alter or repeal a bill while it was in the
hands of the governor. The case clearly
recognizes two rules: 1. That the gover-
nor is a part of the law-making power.
2. That the date of the passage of an act
is the date of its approval by the execu-
tive. Let us attempt to apply the rule con-
tended for by the attorney general to the
ase before us. The penal code passed the
house April 16 and was never again before
that bod $. on the 19th the house passed
the revised civil statutes. Both bills went
to the governor in the same form In which
they had passed the house. Is it not clear
that so far as the house was concerned the
ivil statute was the last expression of the
legislative will? The civil statutes passed
the house April 3, the penal code Aprl'l 2.
Neither bill was returned to the house',
but both went to the governor just as they
had passed the senate. So far, then, as
the senate is concerned the penal code Is
the last expression of the legislative will.
If the senate intended to give postetioritv
to the penal code the^ house did not con-
cur. The house had made the civil stat-
utes the later act. This statement shows
the fallacy of the position contended for
by the attorney general. But statutes
speak not from the date of their passage,
but from the time they go In effect; and
as between conflicting statutes, the one
which last takers effect must prevail as the
lat'est expression of the legislative will.
Mr. Sutherland says: "Statutes speak from
the time they take effect and from that
time they have posteriority. If passed to
take effect at a future day they are safe
to be construed as if passed and ordered
to take immediate effect." (Sutherland
Stu. Con.. 160.)
In "Michigan the act of February 4, 1859,
organized the county of Muskegon and pro-
vided for township elections to be held In
April next. The act went into effect on
May 17, 1859. The supreme court said: "The
act took effect in iMa>. lv.y, an i must be
understood as beginning to speak at the
moment when it became a 'law and not be-
fore. It must have the same construction
as if passed on the day when 'it took effect
and ordered to go into immediate effect.
April next must therefore be understood a.s
April!, I860, being the next April after the
act took effect." (Rice vs. Ruddiinan, 10
Mich , 135.)
The penal cade went into effect August 2.
the civil statutes September 1, 189c". The
revised civil statutes passed the finaii stage
of legislative enactment after the penal
code, and went into effect a month after
the penal code had been in operation, and
tested by every legitimate rule of construc-
tion must control the penal code wherever
the two laws conflict. That there is a con-
flict between article 1005 of the penaa code,
which prohibits prize fights, and so much of
article 5049 as imposts an occupation tax
upon such fights, can not be doubted and
•wi'M not be questioned. That the statutes
are repugnant was decided in the SulUvan
case, supra. In 1876 the court of appeals
said: "It is not to be supposed that the
legislature intended to . punish criminally
any of the sourcee from which the revenues
are derived." (Chiles vs. State, 1 Court
App. 28.)
In the revision of 1879 the penal code went
into effect July 24 and the civil statutes
September 1 of that year. Article 358 of the
code made it an offense to keep for the
purpose of gaming any pigeon hole table,
Jenny Lind table, etc. Article 4665 of the
revised statutes Imposed an occupation tax
of $50 upon the tables named in article 358
of the penal code when kept for profit. In
December, 1879, an Indictment was found
against Harris, charging that he "Did then
and there unlawfully keep and exhibit and
was Interested in keeping and exhibiting
for the purpose of gaming a certain gam-
ing table contrary to law." On the trial
defendant offered testimony to show that
he had paid the tax imposed by law for
keeping and exhibiting the table in ques-
tion. The state admitted that the defend-
ant had the collector's license. Defendant
was convicted and appealed. In reversing
the case the court said: "The table de-
scribed in the testimony is within the pro-
visions of the law and of the kind of taoles
mentioned by name, and the legislature
must have deliberately intended by Impos-
ing the tax to relieve against the penalties
imposed for pursuing the taxed or licensed
occupation." (Harris vs. State, 9 Court of
App., 308.)
In Tennessee by statute it was made a
misdemeanor to deal in futures. Another
act passed at the same session made deal-
ing in futures a licensed occupation. Held,
that a licensed dealer could not be pun-
ished. (State vs. Duncan, 16th Lea, 79.)
Upon the hearing it was admitted by the
state that the relator had tendered to the
tax collector the full amount of the occu-
pation tax imposed by article 5019, revised
civil statutes, and that the collector re-
fused to receive the tax and Issue the li-
cense. The case Is on all fours with the
Harris case supra, and its determination
might be rested upon the authority of that
case.
The state Insists that the act of 3891
creating the commissioners to revise the
laws limited their authority; that they
could only collect and rearrange the then
revised statutes and session acts; that they
had no authority to add new laws, and that
if the re-enactment of so much of the act
of 1889 as imposed an occupation tax upon
prize fights as part of article 5049, revised
civil statutes, was new legislation, the leg-
islature was without constitutional power
to Include that or any other new act in the
revision, but that such legislation must be
passed as separate bills, under the limita-
tion Imposed by sections 35 and 36, article 3.
of the constitution. I can not agree to
this. Section 35 provides that no bill (ex-
cept general appropriation bills) shall con-
tain more than one subject, which shall
be expressed In its title. Section 36: "No
law shall be revised or amended by refer-
ence to its title, but in such case the act
revised or the section amended shall be re-
enacted and published at length."
Why is it that the legislature can only
include one subject in a bill, and that sub-
ject to be expressed in its title; or why
may not the legislature revive or amend a
law by reference to its title? Simply be-
cause the legislature is prohibited from so
doing by sections 35 and 36 of the constitu-
tion above referred to. Remove these con-
stitutional limitations and the legislature
could lawfully pass one bill containing
many subjects without any of them being
expressed in the title; or a law might be
revised or amended by reference to its ti-
tle, or in any other manner which the leg-
islature might adopt. Mr. Cooley says: In
treating a legislative department and con-
ferring upon it the legislative power the
people must be understood to have con-
ferred the full and complete power as it
rests in and may be exercised by" the sav-
ing from the supreme court of New York,
the author continues: "The people, in
framing the constitution, committed to the
legislature the whole law making power or
the state, which they did not expressly or
Impliedly withhold. Plenary power in the
legislature for all purposes of civil govern-
ment is the rule. A prohibition to exercise
a particular power is an exception.'
(Cooley. Con. Llm , 104-105.) Section 43. ar- >,
tide 3 of the constitution is as follows:
"The lirst session of the legislature under
this constitution shall provide for revising,
digesting and publishing the laws, civil and
criminal, and a like revision, digest and ;
publication may be made every ten years ;
thereafter; provided, that in the adoption
of and giving effect to any such digest or ,
revision the legislature shall not be lim-
ited by sections 35 and 36 of this article."
From this it is plain that the legislature j
may digest and revise the laws just as
though sections 85 and 36 were not in the
constitution. But it is contended that the
Twenty-fourth legislature, in adopting the
work of the codifiers, must be governed by
the provisions of the act of the Twenty-
second legislature appointing the commis-
sioners to make the revision, and the
Twenty-fourth legislature must accept or
reject the work of the reviser. It is a fa-
miliar rule that every legislative body, un- {
less restrained by the constitution, may
modify or abolish the acts of its predeces-
sor. (Cooley, Con. Llm., 14?*)
One legislature can not hind a subsequent
legislature to any particular mode or man-
ner by which a law -shall he repealed. (Kel-
logg vs. Osh&osh, 13 Wis.. 678.) K? :t not
equa.-iy true that one W.n!ature can not
bind a. subsequent legislature a.s to what
law* it might pass or in what manner it
m -Jit pass them? What is a revision? Mr.
Sutherland says revision cf statutes implies
a i --examination of thwn. The word i«s ap-
plied to a restatement of the- law in a cor-
rected or improved form. The restatement
may be with or without materkii change. A
rev sion is Intended to take the place of the
law as previously formulated. By adopting,
the legislature says the same thing in ef-
fect as when a partioular -section Is amend-
ed by the words. "So as to read as foMowi'."
(Sutherland Con. Stat., 154.) The revision of
1879 contained many provisions not before
Included in any law of the state. The right
of the plaintiff to a second suit In trespass
to try title was taken away. The act re-
quiring parties to actions of trespass to try
title to file abstracts of their title for thft
fiust time appeared in the revision. The iatw
regulating attachments was changed. Be-
fore the revision murder in the first degree
was pun -hahle by death. The penal code
in 1879 made the offense punisiia-ble <by dcat i
or confinement in the penitentiary for life
at the discretion of the jury. Many other
additions and alterations were made in the
civil and criminal statutes These altera-
tions. additions and amendments for six-
teen years have been by the courtis enforced
the -law of the state. The constitutional
power of the 'legislature to make them in
the f ,rm of a revision h.« never been ques-
tioned until now. They have been recog-
nized and acted upon as valid laws for six-
teen years »by every department of the gov-
ernment as well as by the bench, the bar
and the people, and surely, if there had
been any constitutional! objection to them,
some one would have found it out before
now. But if the power could ever have been
questioned, the contemporaneous construc-
tion of the constitution and long practice
and acquiescence have put the question at
rest. (Stuart vs. La Ira, 1 Cranch, U. S.
Sit.n. Ct., 299; Coo-iey Con. Llm., pp. 84-85.)
The power of congress to alter, amend and
add to the work oL the revisers is cleariy
recognized, notwithstanding the fact the
law creating the commission 0-nly contem-
plated a consolidation and revision of the
statutes. The report of the house commit-
tee stated that the*fcark of the revisers was
"found to embody all the provisions of ex-
isting law in brief, clear and precise lan-
guage." (Bate ftefrigerutin-g "Co. vs. Sulz-
berger. 157 R S., 1.)
I have not had access to the revised
statutes as passed. Certified copies of such
parts as were deemed material were used
on the hearing- of this cause. An inspec-
tion of the Journals, 'however, shows that
the work of the revivers was carefully ex-
amined by the journal committee to which
it was referred. A great many amend-
ments were made, sections were stricken
out and now sections inserted, and as re-
ported by the committee the bills were
passed, and constitute to-day the penal
code and the revised civil statutes. The
committee struck out so much of article
3U15. revised civil statutes, as authorized
the state to prevent by injunction a viola-
tion of the penal law. This plainly 'mani-
fests the legislative intent that the state
shall not have the remedy -by Injunction to
prevent violations of the penal law. They
did not strike out so much of article 5049
as makes prize fighting a lice-need occupa-
tion. Does not this clearly manifest the
legislative intent Chat under the revised
civil statutes eucfo exhibitions should be a
source of revenue to the state, and there-
fore not punish able* .as offenses against the
penal laws?
Are w e to assume that the failure of the
legislature to strike this prevision from ar-
ticle 5049 was.t'he. result of ao-cident or mis-
take? The courts can not assume that a
law was passed by mistake. (Hicks vs.
Jamison. M'o. App., 35).
In the enactment of a statute -me must
suppose that the legislative intent is di-
rected as to what has been enacted and
exists as « part of the statutory law of the
land on the same subject or related to it.
(State vs. Brewster, 44 Ohio St., 250).
It is a familiar principle t'hat where an
old act Which has received Judicial inter-
pretation has been repealed and afterward
re-enacted, it will' be presumed that the
legislature Intended that the new act
Should receive the same construction which
the courts had placed upon the old. Near-
ly twenty years ago the court of appeals
decided that it was not to be supposed that
the legislature intended to punish criminal-
ly any of the acts trom whicih its revenue
was in part derived. (Childs vs. State, su-
pra).
The legislature must 'be held to knowr
this decision, and in passing upon the act
to adopt the revised civil statutes, which
made prize fighting a licensed occupation,
and which by virtue of 'its terms went into
effect after the adoption of the penal code,
which prohibited and punished prize fight-
ing. the legislature must have intended
t'hat these two acts should receive the
same construction which similar acts had
received 'in Childs vs. the state and Har-
ris vs. the state.
As I have shown, the revised civil stat-
utes were passed and went Into effect
after the penal code. By article 1005 of the
penal code prize fighting is prohibited and
punished. By article 5049 of the revised
civil statutes it is made a licensed occupa-
tion. In order to give effect and make
operative article 1005, are we at liberty to
strike bodily from the revised civil stat-
utes so much thereof as makes prize fight-
ing a licensed occupation and a source of
revenue to the state? The ordinary rules
of construction do not authorize it; our
penal code forbids it. Mr. Sutherland says:
"We are not at liberty to Imagine an in-
tent and bind the letter of the act to that
intent, much less can we Indulge on the li-
cense of striking out, Inserting and remod-
eling with a view of making the letter ex-
press an Intent which in its native force
does not evidence."
Certainly there is nothing in the statute
which indicates a purpose upon the part
of the legislature to hold as a blank so
much of article 5049 as makes prize fight-
ing a licensed occupation. Whether insert-
ed by accident or inadvertence, it Is there,
and the court must give effect to it. Its
effect is to repeal or suspend so much of
the penal code as makes prize fighting an
offense against the laws of the sta te. That
the legislature, by an act duly passed,
carelessly or unintentionally repealed a
law punishing a certain act as a crime, is
no reason why well settled principles
should be disregarded by the courts. (Shep-
ard vs. the people, 25 N. Y., page 411.)
Article 6 of the penal code provides:
"Whenever it appears that a provision of
the penal law Is so indefinitely framed, or
of such doubtful construction that it can
not be understood, either from the lan-
guage in which it is expressed or from
some other written law of the state, such
law shall be wholly Inoperative."
In article 1 of the penal code it is de-
clared to be the design of the penal code to
define in plain language every offense
against the laws of this state and affix
to each offense its proper punishment.
These two sections were in the original
code. Judge Wilson, in the case of Leeper
vs. the state, Twenty-ninth court of ap-
peals, says: "These codes have been pro-
nounced by the bench and bar of our state
to be the most perfect system of criminal
laws ever devised." It never was intended
by the frainers of the code that the people
to be affected by Its provisions should be
driven to the necessity of resorting to
curious and subtle means by which it
might be ascertained whether a certain act
was punishable as a crime. It was intend-
ed to be plain, so plain that even the
humblest citizen might understand it. In
French vs. the state, Fourteenth court of
appeals, page 76, there was a conflict be-
tween the revised civil statutes and the
penal code. One required the certificate of
a physician to be recorded with the clerk
reign power of any country, subject only J of the district court, while the other re-
to such restrictions as they may have seen
lifc to impose, and to the limitations which
ucontained in the constitution of the
rill ted States. The legislative department
1s not made a special agency for the exer-
cise of specifically defined legislative pow-
ers. but is intrusted with the general au-
thority to make laws at discretion. Quot-
quire-i the certificate to be recorded with
the cb rk of the county court. French was
convicted of unlawfully practicing medi-
cine, and appealed. Judge Wilson, in re-
versing the case, says: "It was evidently
an oversight of the revisers that occa-
sioned the difference between the two stat-
utes, but the difference, no matter how
It occurred, exists, and the question for
ns to determine is its effect. We are un-
able to reconcile the two statutes. One
must therefore prevail over the other in so
tar as the place of the recording of the
t» rtifleate is involved, and in this conflict
we think The civil statutes must take prece-
dence over the penal one."
in Harris vs. the slate and Childs vs.
the state there was a conflict between the
civ il statutes and the penal statutes, and
in both cases the penal statutes had to
give way. I know of no case decided in
this state where a contrary opinion has
been promulgated.
1 have given this matter most careful
and deliberate consideration. In my opin-
ion the revised civil statutes is the last
expression of the legislative will, and that
so much of article 3049 as makes prize
fighting a licensed occupation and a source
of revenue to the state, being in conflict
with article 1005 of the penal code, which
punishes prize fighting, the latter must
give way. I approve the decision in Childs
vs. the state, Harris vs. the state and
French vs. the state, but even if I did not
they are the law unto me. and a sense of
official duty impels me to follow them.
The relator is discharged. J. M. HURT,
Presiding Judge Court Criminal Appeals.
AUSTIN MINISTERS
Congratulate Culberson and Promise Him
Moral and Physical Assistance.
Austin, Tex., Sept. 21.—The following res-
olutions were drafted, adopted by the Aus-
tin ministerial association and presented to
the governor this afternoon:
Whereas we are confronted with a situa-
tion of seeming doubt and uncertainty as
to the technical legality of prize fighting
In this state; and
Whereas, the comptroller, R. W. Finley,
l*y.s refused a license *for such unlawful
act, and the attorney general, Hon. M. M.
Crane, has given his official opinion as to
the law against prize fighting, and the
chief executive of the state of Texas, his
excellency Hon. Charles A. Culberson, has
repeatedly, steadfastly and uniformly as-
sured the law loving people of the state
that the advertised- prize fight shall not
occur in open and .flagrant violation of the
law; and
Whereas the court of last resort has not
rendered a decision overruling the attor-
ney general's opinion; and
Whereas our noble governor has stated
in unequivocal language that until such
court of last resort should stop him he
will, as the sworn executive of the state
of Texas, prevent such prize fight, "if
enough men can be l'ound,'' now therefore
be it
Resolved, as ministers of the various de-
nominations and churches and as citizens
of Texas, believing that we represent the
finer feelings and higher moral instincts of
our whole people regurdiing this question:
1. That we congratulate our loyal and
faithful state officers upon the manly and
consistent stanid they have taken in the
premises.
2. That we pledge them Upon our most
sacred honor tiiiat we will stand by them
in their laudulble arnd 'lawful efforts to
maintain the majesty and secure the su-
premacy of the law In tlhis notable crisis
of the legal and moral career and life of
the Lone Star state.
3. That until a e^ourt of last resort may
or s'hall settle this question adversely to
the opinion of the attorney general, whicih
opinion the governor has already declared
his intention to follow, we solicit and be-
speak for our chief executive the moral
support, and if needed, tie personal pres-
ence and physical assistance of the brave,
•heroic a»n'd law-abiding men in every- part
of tin Is great state.
4. That copies of the foregoing: be handed
to Governor C. A. Culberson, to the daily
papers, and as far as practicable to all the
weekly papers, both secular and -religious,
with requests for publication.
JUDGES COOK TO THE RESCUE.
Austin, Tex., Sept. 21.—The following 'let-
ter from Judge Cook -has been made public:
San Marcos, Tex., Sept. W.-^overnor:
While 1 am entirely assured that you are
"armed at all points" and will D. V. "stop
the fight," ais a citizen admiring your 'pur-
pose and conduct and desiring to testify my
foil approbation of your course, 1 propose
to do it by suggesting methods of assist-
ance rather than shouting praise. For my
sincerity and earnest wish to hold up your
•hancK I know you will overlook my pre-
sumption. An "affray" is defined In the
penal code thus: "If any two or more per-
sons shall fig'ht together in a pu-blic pi Ace,"
etc. Chapter 13. article 313. Any place
made public by the assemblage of -people rli<*
a public place within the meaning of the
law, "An unlawful assembly is the meet-
ing of. three or more pereor.is. with t'he in-
tent to aid each other by violence or in £»ny
other manner either to commit an offense
or," etc. (P.' €., Ch. 1, Art. 279.) "If the
persons unlawfuiily assembled together do
or attempt to do any Illegal act, all thotse
engaged in such illegal act are guilty of
riot."
In the code of criminal procedure, under
the head of "Prevention of Offenses," am-
ple provision is made to enable the officers
(magistrates and peace officers) to prevent
the violation of any and aitl offenses against
•the penal code.
The pretext under which theue lawless
and Immoral braggarts claim immunity, viz,
a license, is utterly specioue, for the legis-
lature can not be supposed to 'have intended
to legalize any act which is denounced as a
crime and against -public policy. In fact, I
doubt, even if the legislature had intended
to license, and thereby indirectly legalize
that which is uniformly denounced through-
out the whole system of our penal code as
criminal, and which is contrary to the
genius and civilization of our government,
whether it would not be held bv the courlo
Inoperative as contrary to public policy.
Excuse me for presuming so far, but as an
evidence of my good faith. I beg to place
myself isubject to the "good of the state"
and your excellency's service. Your obe-
dient servant, GUSTAV COOK.
THE CODIFIERS* COURSE.
Austin, Tex., Sept. 21.—Judge Z. T. Ful-
irore, one of the codifying commission,
anent the comments upon the appearence
of the prize fighting license act in the re-
vision made by the commission, though
presumed to have been antecedently re-
pealed by the act of 1891, says that the
commissioners construed strictly the au-
thority under which they framed the
codes. This construction justified them in
omitting from the codes such statutes as
lhad been specifically repealed by legislative
act. bu't did not Justify the omission of
statutes repealed by implication. What-
ever the result, it is evident that the com-
mission can not be held accountable for
the confusion, unless their duty and power
extended so far as to require a critical
analysis of the laws affecting the status of
laws, and that such as are found in their
judgment repealed or that are found de-
fective or unconstitutional should be omit-
ted from the codes. Evidently no legisla-
ture would clothe a commission with such
latitudinous discretion. The consequence is
that the legislature, in adopting the code,
passes into a new lease of life various
statutes which have been repealed indi-
rectly and which have been killed off in
other ways.
NO REFEREE YET.
New York, Sept. 21.—No referee has yet
been selected for the Corbett-Fltzslmmons
fight. This morning W. A. Brady, repre-
senting Oorbett; Martin Jul-ien for Fitz-
slmmons, and Joe Vendig for the Florida
athletic club, met, and after three hours
of wrangling decided upon nothing. Brady
wanted the referee decided upon at once,
or at least one week before the fight.
Julien said that he would not have a refe-
ree named until the day preceding the bat-
tle. Vendig implored both representatives
to come to a decision.
"No," said Julien, "I have named the
day we want, and that settles it."
"Oh, no, 1-t don't." said Brady. "We
have something to say about that, and I
think the club ought to be consulted."
Brady refused to accept "Yank" Sulli-
van, saying that Sullivan had Written in-
sulting letters to Corbett. Several other
names were suggested, among them Phil
Dwyer and Herman Oelrichs, but Julien
refused to consider them.
There was a great deal of further talk,
but nothing resulted.
BILLY LtAYTON WON.
Ardmore, I. T. Sept. 21.—'A fight to a
finish for the gate receipts between Kid
Mitchell and Billy Layton, welterweights,
was fought here to-night under the au-
spices of the Ardmore athletic clu'b, and
(Mitchell was knocked out in the ninth
round.
ADJOURNED TO MEET IN DALLAS.
Atlantic Ctty, N. J., Sept. 21.—The sover-
eign grand lodge of the Independent Order
cf Odd Fellows adjourned at noon to-day
to meet in Dallas, Tex., on the third Mon-
day in September, 1896.
jl
i
DRY GOODS STOKE
Corner 2'2d aud Postoffice.
J Special Bargains for This Week :
Capes and
Jackets.
150 Ladies' Capes, 15 different
styles, ruffled neck, $2 and
$2.50 values; we sell each at V '
75 Ladies' Capes, brown and black,
mixed and solid black, fur col-
lar, $2.50 and $350 rtf Cf)
values; each at .
4ti Ladies' Double Capes, fur
trimmed, $3.50 and rt 1 -j r
$4.50 values; each at V'-tO
.3 Ladies' Capes, tan colored, gilt
trimming, $4.50 and $6 rt o
values; each at . .
25 Ladies' Capes, black diagonal,
&r!r. . . S2.50
150 Ladies' Jackets, 15 different
styles and colors, worth from $4
to $10 each, manufacturer's
samples rt ft Cn
Your choice each at .
50 Misses' Jackets, mixed colors,
fine finished goods, worth if rt
$4; each at . . . w*
100 Children's Navy Blue Reefers,
worth $1. C/l
Each at . . . "l/l,
100 Misses' Blazers, check flan-
nel, worth $1.50 to $2.50. "ICn
Each at . . . . / *» t
ao Misses' Dresses, all wool goods,
only one of a style, worth rtrt
from $5 to $7; each at . v*
12 Ladies' Silk Waists, checks and
stripes, worth from $3.50 rtrt
to $4.50; each at . .
Unbleached
Goods.
One case Unbleached Cotttin
Flannel, the ia)^c quality, rt*
r2 yards for . . . V'
5 pieces Unbleached Damask,
red border, worth 35c, 20c
Umbrellas.
We offer this week:
Sateen Umbrellas at . T0C eac'1
Gloria Umbrellas at . 90c eac'1
Silk Umbrellas, fancy
handles ■ $1.00 each
Still finer Silk Umbrellas,
fancy handles . $1.40 each
Such values have never been of-
fered before.
Dry Goods.
50 pieces Sateen, black and navy
grounds, figures and Qi _
checks, worth 15c, at . . 'a*
40 pieces Sateen, dark grounds,
fancy patterns, goods never sold
for less than 30c. 701/,
At .... I£2t'
10 pieces All Wool Scotch Plaid,
36 inches wide, worth 28c
50c, at
yd
All Wool Cashmere, 42 in. 07'-n
wide, worth 60c, at . " ' 2"
Handkerch'fs.
Children's Handkerchiefs,
worth 40c a doz, at . . ' ® "dz
Ladies' Handkerchiefs,
plain wt^te and fancy bor- P.
dered, worth ioc, at . . ""
Or 50c par doian
Ladies' Embroidered Handker-
chiefs, worth 15c. J?1/,
At °aC
Ladies' Embroidered Handker-
chiefs, worth 20c. 10c
Ladies' Embroidered Handker-
chiefs, worth 25c.
. 15c
Ladies' Embroidered Handker-
chiefs, worth 40c. 25c
150 dozen Men's Colored Border
Handkerchiefs, worth 90c
$r.5o doz, at
doz
I BLOCK S DRY GOODS STORE
preserve Your Health
By Eating the Purest Food.
We carry only the purest of Foods. We carry
only the highest grade of Groceries. Try us. We
send out no salesmen. Phone your orders or call.
A. RAKEL'S ne^t°OrhleEAN9
Groceries, Wines and Liquors.
2018 and 2020 Market St. Phone 38.
UNHAPPY COLONISTS.
Negroes Who Have Been Cooped Up
in Camp Jenner to Be Sent
Back to Alabama
STATE DEPARTMENT ACTS.
Southern Pacific Railway Agrees to Trans-
port Them to New Orleans and
Wait for Its Pay.
Ttil'le. It was thought that such an arrange-
ment would be made, but to-day telegram's
from Washington announce t'hat the na-
tional government wtfl do nothuig toward
•transporting them. The failure of tlhie plan
wad caused by the appearance here of W.
O. DM is of El'Ms & Cunningham, who of-
fers to transport the negroes to 'his farm
on the Brazos under a contract to pick cot-
ton. The government takes it that this of-
fer relieves It of any obligation to assist
tihem. The colonists, however, will not ac-
cept -Ellis' proposition, and -hold to their de-
sire to return to Alabama. Inspector Em-
mett Rountree of the customs, service leaves
-to-morrow for New York/ having ex-
changed places wtth Mr. Thos. Skinner of
Brooklyn.
THE NEGROES AT BAOLE PASS.
Houston, Tex., Sept. 21.—The following
correspondence, Which passed to-day, Is
self-explanatory:
"Eagle Pass, Tex., Sept. 21.—L. J. Parks,
Houston, Tex.: TTie folrowing telegram re-
TDagle Pass, Maverick 'Co., Tex., "Sept. 21.
—Secretary Olney to-day wired Consul
'Sparks to arrange with railroads -to trans-
port negro colonists to Alabama with the
•assurance fhat both 'his department and
President Cleveland would earnestly rec-
ommend to congress repayment. General
Passenger Agent Parks of the Southern
Pacific wires that his road will take them
on this assurance provided tihe government
guarantees that it will care for tihe negroes
in New Orleans in case connecting lines do
not ship them on at once.
The county commilseboners have ordered
that the negroes be fed until Monday at
•the county's expense.
THEY REFUSE BMIPUOYMENT.
Eagle Pass, Tex., Sept. 19.—'The disposi-
tion of the negroes discharged from the
United States quarantine -station and now
encamped on the outskirts of Eagle Pa«s
has become a serioue question. Over 200
are now in the camp and many more wWl
•soon be added to them. They have no
money nor means of sustenance ahd are
lying on the ground without shelter, there
being but four small tents for the Whole
party. For the past few days they .have
been trudging about the town begging, "but
were to-day ordered by the sheriff to keep
off t'he streets. The position of these peo-
ple is a peculiar one. They were trans-
ported here free by the Mexican Interna-
tlo'nal railway from Torreo>n, Mexico, ar-
riving utterly ind-'.gent and afflicted wit-h
smallpox. They were put Into a quaran-
tine camp four miles from 'here and turned
over to the United States government, that
held and cared for them nearly two months.
The obligation of the government to sus-
tain them ceased on their discharge from
tlhe quarantine camp, and they have "been
turned loose witihout resources in a country
where there are no opportunities for em-
ployment. The negroes think that the gov-
ernment shomld take them "home. They are
not without reason. To turn 300 or 400 peo-
X>ie loose from a quarantine station near
Ga.lveston, New Orleans or New York would
be no great hardship. They would renddy
get into employment or be provided for by
public and private charity until employment
could be found. But tihere is no demand for
common 'labor here, and 400 paupers is far
inure than the charities of Maverick county
can provide for. It is over 150 miles to the
nearest populous Center where occupation
cam probably be found for afl, 'but it coinld
-hardly 'be expected that vvu-meii and children
should tram-p and 'beg their way for that
distance through a sparsely settled country.
Propositions -have 'been made by the South-
ern Pacific company to carry the negroes if
the secretary of state will agree to recom-
mend congress to pass an appropriation to
pay the company at the rate of 1 cent a
ceived just from Washington:
" *9oarks, Consul, Eagle Pass: Arrange
immediately if possible wit'h railroads iby
contract to trani.jort all the negro refu-
gees to their homes fn Alabama on the
assurance of Che department, which is also
tthe assurance of the president, that con-
gress will be urgently recommended to
vote payment. The department thinks the
railroads ought not to assume, and -will
not assume, the serious responsibility of
refusing this arrangement. If, however,
they do refuse, notwithstanding al'l your
efforts, then telegraph at once the lowest
lump sum for which the railroads will con-
tract to transport them, t'hat the depart-
ment may ascertain whether there t# any
mode now known by which the cash can
be raised. Answer earliest possible mo-
ment. OL»NEY.'
"■Consul Sparks desires me to submit this
message to vou, and that you arrange with
connecting lines and advise what ca-n be
expected at the earliest possible moment.
The negroes must remove quick, as all
rations have 'been exhausted.
"T. O. ODORGE."
"Houston, Tex., Sept. 21.—T. G. George,
Ragle Pass, Tex.: Telegram received. We
will haul the negroes undet the conditions
named in the telegram from Secretary
Olney if the government will take charge
of the negroes upon their arrival in New
Orleans, or If arrangements are made wtth
t'he Fines east of Nerw Orleans to take them
through to their homes, our object being
to avoid conflict with the authorities for
turning the negroes upon tfhe charity of
the city of New Orleans, the eastern ter-
minus of the line for Which I have au-
thority to act. So far connecting lines have
indicated to us their willingness to take
the negroes out of New Orleans under the
arrangements in Which we concur. I have
again wired connecting lines! the suibsitance
or t)Ws message, as per the desire of Con-
sul Sparks, but expect nothing but a re-
iteration of their former terms.
"L. J. PARKS."
ACCIDENTAL KILLING.
San Marcos, Tex., Sept. 21.—This morning:
Sheriff W. T. Jackman was attempting to
arrest a negro, John Moseby, who was
running at some distance, and refusing to
stop when ordered Mr. Jackman fired his
pistol after him to frighten him, but unfor-
tunately the ball struck the fugitive in the
"back and killed him almost Instantly. Mr.
Jackman surrendered to the Justice of the
peace. District court being in session, the
examining trial was taken to that court,
■and Juilge H. Tek-hmuller, after hearing
all the facts, discharged Mr. Jackman
without bail.
District court adjourned to-day.
FREE TO BALDHEADS.
We will mail on application froe information
how to grow hair upon a bald head, stop falling
bah- and remove scalp di'eaaes. Ad. Alteobeira
Medical Dispensary, 1*7 £. 3d it,, UacioaaU, U
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
The Galveston Daily News. (Galveston, Tex.), Vol. 54, No. 182, Ed. 1 Sunday, September 22, 1895, newspaper, September 22, 1895; Galveston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth465940/m1/4/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Abilene Library Consortium.