The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1874-07-04
raOH Arsrlg
arguments In lbo international fond
case,
speeches Of Mr. llnrfl, And ATTORNEY
General Clark.
From the Houston Telegraph

llIiln NV liNuHlbn i'l'HlNHU
AUSTIN, June 10 The argument In
the international bond casc wns Opcn-
ri by Mr.. Harris, who cOntendcd TINT
the governor, treasurer and comptroller
are, by the constitution of the state,
made the exclusive judges Of their own
action. He hoped the court would re-
sist the anaconda powerOf the railroad
corporations that IL was absurd to
suppose the legislature could bind the
state for six or sixty millions of dollars
for thirty years. The republican prin-
ciDle that there should be no taxation
without representation had been viola-
ted, for the legislature that passed the
act Incorporating the International
railway company was elected when
many people were disfranchised. The
ten was thrown into Boston harbor for
less outrage. Further, he said that
the legislature was bribed. Chief JUS
ticel-"Was that not negatived 10y the
Jury ?" HarriS-"les, because the evil
dence WAS ruled out of court" The In
ternational railroad company, he con.
tinued, was asking the court to exceed
its jurisdiction and to break down all
barriers defending the state treasury,
anu tiibN W iSlit't w III
hands of the judge of the district court
of Travis county the powers of all three
departments of the government, judi
cial, legislative and executive.
Attorney General Clark followed
with an able legal argument, advance
ing the following propositions supple
mental to the previous brief, viz:
First-rhc power to enforce the per-
formance of II public duty, on the part
of on executive officer of the govern
ment, must from its nature be an extra
judicial prerogative, and the people Of
Texas in framing their government
have filled to delegate that portion of
sovereignty to any court. The history
of mandamus was lucidly and interest
ingly examined. Second, the power to
enforce, if it pertains to any court, does
not pertain to court whose jurisdic-
ton is limited in Il particular section.
1t must be court i'm which judicial
sovereignty resides, and which eXer-
cises Il general superintendent over
inferior tribunals and persons through
out the state. fancy in Kendall vs..
the United States, II Prt., G2S. Third
Whenever duty is imposed by
statute upon II constituted executive
officer, and such duty appears to him
rs inconsistent with other duties de-
volved upon him by the constitution,
or when the enactment takes from
him any constitutional prerogative, it
is right and duty to decline its eXecu-
ton, he being responsible for the mis-
take to the removing power, and not to
The courts. Federalist, No. 81; second
Dallas, 40; state constitution, October
4, section 20.
Fifth-NO court will grant writ of
mandamus in any case to command Il
ublic officer to perform II duty when
The officer is such an one as is amena-
tie to another authority by which he
can be punished for neglect. Tapping
on Mandamus liz.
Sixth-The exercise of the power
eli lined is tantamount to providing
mt de for the suspension or removal of
a constitutional officer in q manner
contrary to the provisions of the con-
stitution.
Seventh-No court has the right to
grant a mandamus in any case except
where it is legal and the Judge duly re-
CURED. Taffany, nine, 4; Dowlingand
Ryland.
The court adjourned to four p. NJ.
w. l. Moody returns to New York
tonight.
Lieutenant Governor Hubbard says
that settlement of the state pecu
mary difficulties will depend on the
disposition made of the International
case.