The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1874-08-22

teenth legislature, was the enactment
of Il law on the 23d of March, covering
thirteen closely printed pages of the
General Laws of Texas" and entitled
"An act to Encourage Stock Raising,
aud for the Protection of Stock raisers."
TO give correct synopsis of the forty
six sections of this act is out of our
power, as we only had an opportunity
of seeing copy of the laws on yester-
day, and to print it in full would take
up all the space of THE HERALD for at
least three issues. The main features
of the act are, to constitute each or
ganized county in the state an inspect
or's district, to appoint an inspector
for each county, whose duty it is to in
spect all hides and cattle before they
are sold, and see that the said hides
and cattle are the property of the party
proposing to sell them, and to relieve
one-half the state nearly from the Ope-
ration of the law. Dallas is not one of
the counties relieved from the pains
and penalties of the law. The prime
object of the act was, of course, to pre-
vent the stealing of cattle, and t"
perfect plan for the detection of the
thieves, where any had been stolen.
AS cattle raising Is perhaps the largest
and most profitable industrial pursuit
t. l,o ctn thArn IL, ,pastinn that
every possible safeguard ought to be
thrown around the property of those
engaged in it. The act that was passed
at the last session, by reason of the dis
crimination made therein in favor of
certain localities, has produced consid-
cradle dissatisfaction and ill-feeling
throughout the state, and has at length
been pronounced unconstitutional by
Judge Mast .rson. of the Houston cir
cult, as will he seen by reference 20 his
able and conclusive opinion published
by us to-day.
The case came up on a motion to
dissolve an injunction granted by
Judge Masterson at chambers, restrain
ing the hide inspectoro of Harris county
from further attempting to enforce the
law. The attorney for plaintiff asked
to have the preliminary injunction
made perpetual on two grounds: First,
That the act was unconstitutional
Second, That under the law the in
spector was not authorized to charge
any fee for the inspection of Eides
taken from animals previously in
spected by him. They argued OH the
first proposition that under the con-
stitution all taxation shall be equal and
uniform that the fees paid to the in
spectors were in fact taxes, and that
there being fifty-two counties exempt
ed from the operation of the law, the
taxation throughout the state was not
equal and uniform. Further, they
claimed that under the constitution all
taxation shouldbe ad valorem, and that
the taxation under this act would be
zpecidl, as the cattle and hides would
be taxed without any regard to their
value. The plaintiffs were represented
by Messrs. Garnett & Garnett and the
defendant by Messrs. Goldthwaite &
Turner. Defendants attorneys con-
tested with much force and reasoning
the position taken by plaintiffs, but
without avail, Judge MastersOn decid-
ing, in the main, that the plaintiffs
were right in their reasoning.
Judge MastertOn's decision will have
to pass the ordeal of the supreme court
before it becomes the law of the state.
We hardly think, however, that there
is any danger of it being overruled.