The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1874-01-22
Tho situation IN Eexas.



lFSon Forneys Pres
Tie political situation in Texas IS one Of
much gravity. The Supreme Court az that
State has decided, as our advises inform us.
that the election held in that State on the
second day Of December last was without
authority Of law, and Is therefore null and
void. Consequences may result from this
action Of the Judiciary which makes Il the
duty Of the press 10 lay before the country
the facts Of the case.
The sixth section Of the third article 81
the Constitution Of Texas provides as fol-
lows: ssAll elections for State, district, or
county officers shall be held at the county
seats Of the several counties, until other
wise provided hy law; and the polls shall be
open for focr days, from O'Clock A. ~. g
4 O'Clock P. ". 81 each day.
The Legislature II Texas at us last SIS,
sion, passed an election law, which pro-
vided that an election should be held Tor
State, district, and county officers on the
second day Of d cen Der, at the various Pre-
cinets Ia tho sveral counties as established
or created by the county courts. Governor
Davis, the prese.t Governor Of the State,
issued his proc 'amaticl for an election IN
conformity with the provisions Of the act of
tae Legislature. He was himself the Repub-
lican candidate for reelection. The Dem
Ocratic candidate wasJudge Richard Coke,
formerly Judge Of the Supreme Court Of
the State Both these gentlemen made
vigorous canvass, and not an intimation was
heard from any quarter that the election
law was a violation of tho Constitution until
after the election, when IL was known that
the Democrats had carried the State by
majority not much less than fifty thousand.
The position was then taken by some Of the
incumbents of State and county offices that
the election was a nullity, because the polls
had been kept open only one day instead Of
four The question was brought before the
supreme Court. Il was claimed by those
interested in sustaining the validity Of the
election, that the case tods made up for the
purpose Of ctciting the opinion Of thecourt.
With this particular feature Of tho contro-
yersy we do not concern ourselves. The
argument against tho validity Of the cleo
ton was that the latter clause Of The sixth
section Of the third article OF the Constitu-
ton, which we have quoted above, requir-
ing the polls TO be kept open for four days
was an independent and substantive pr0yi
sion, which Il was not competent Tor the
Legislature to change. This, we suppose,
was the view taken by the court.
We are not in the habit Of criticising the
decisions Of courts Of justice, but Il seems
to US too plain for serious discussion that
the Constitution Of Texas meant TO provide
that the polls should be kept open Tor four
days so long as tho elections were held nt
the countyeseats and that whenever tho
Legislature thought proper 70 return 70 the
old custom of voting n the different pre-
cincts OF the respectivU counties Il was per-
! fectly competent for them 20 provide that
the election should continue Tor but ono
day.
But the question was not one for the court.
Ordinarily and where private rights arc
involved, the courts properly decide
whether or not an net Of the Legislature IS
in accordance with the Contribution. But
there are questions which IN their nature
are political, involving the life And the IN
dependence Of the different departments Of
government Such was the question IN
Texas. Il was competent foF the Leglsla-
ture To regulate the general subject Of the
elections Tor the purpose Of preserving IN
force the political organization. IN doing
so It was competent for them 70 eonstruo
for themselves the constitutional provision
on the subject. Having done 50, and the
people having in their turn acted In obe-
dience to the Legislative direction, lis too
much for a court to say that the expression
Of the popular will shall be disrcgardcd,
and shnll 60 for nought, because two or
three judges may be of opinion that the
Legislature erred ia constituting the Consti-
tntion upon question purely POLITICAL.
We are informed that those IN Texas who
wish TO treat the election as q nullity give
out intimations that they have assurances
LADY q tySi83sbinssaen i3ssbbIin nssaen. II Dt tins fnt y
that President Grant, or any one who is an
thorized to speak for him, has given any
such assurances, we say emphptically that
We do not believe it. SO fafas We are IN
/ formed, there is no pretenss That there was
any fraud in tho Texas election. Our in-
formation is that the election was fair
one; that it was exceptionally quiet and or
derly, This being so, the Government ~
! Washington viii not feel called upon 70 IN
terfere Tho matter Is far too grave 70 be
treated as one Of party. Il Is not By any
means q Louisiana case. We hope the peo.
4 pleof Texas viii act with such prudence
and discretion as to avert the dangers
which threaten; and that the dawning
Iprosperity of tho great Empire State Of the
Southwest will not be destroyed by an IN
necessary political convulsion.