The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-03-07
AUSTIN LETTER.
The Dallas Amended Charter Question
Synopsis Of Oh. Arguments FRO al" >o"'
advanced by Messrs. Burke anu ino"p
son The constitutional Aspect Oh '"'
Question the Coign of Vantage
TNo. 3S.l

Ausr,S March 4.-lspecial correspond
ence. IL teegraphed on day before yes
terdav the result OF tho efforts before The
senate committee on state ana Sto amend
the charter of the city ofDallas, the argu
nients made, etc. BY invitation OF that
committee, Judge RI. Il. Burke and Mr.
John w, Thompson, of Dallas, appeared
before il IN opposition to that part OF the
bill giving exclusive original jurisdiction
10 the recorders or mayors court OF all
misdemeanors committed within the cor
porate limits Of the CITY, Ihese gentlemen
objected TO that portion the oui ABOVE
stitutionality and inexpediency. Their
arguments on these questions were slngu-
Iariy able and conclusive, and they made the
evident conflict OF the provisions as against
the clear language OF the constitution so
palpable that the committee promptly
struck out that part Of the Dill TO which
they objected, and left the matter Just
where it now is under the general laws OF
the state. Judge Burke remarkeu that ne
did not care TO address himself to the ques.
ton of the consolidation.of East Dallas WIN
Dallas, ny that subject had already been re-
viewed before the committee on preyIors
occasion, but said he believed that there
were many signatures to the East DAM
pettion of oeople who lived miles and miles
away from that ambitiousand aspiring little
town.
Mr.. Johnson represented the other side.
Like n lawyer and clear thinker he omitted
from his argument oil irrelevant matter
and boldly struck right in the very pith
and marrow OF his case. He handled the
subject in as mastery aud earnest man.
ner as was possible, eyidenclng careful
thought and much investigation, but alas
for his cause, the bill doesn't hold water
when touched by the constitutional test,
which, however, is no fault OF his. lie
said substantially,
In all civilized governments cities are
recognized as important SUBDIVISIONS OF the
state; that in many important particulars
the creation of municipal corporations by
special charter or laws supplanting the
general laws such as the road laws, taxa.
tion laws, etc, that the cities being recCg-
nized as political subdivisions OF the state
ought to have rghtto control regulate
and punish the otienses nuisances and
miademeanors therein committed, and
that thereby the ends of the state law were
sufficiently met and carried ont; that tho
object OF the amendments to the
charter. of Dallass asked for in the bill
was simply TO gran, the city the
exclusive control of all misdemeanors
within the city limits, where the fine TO be |
imposed did not exceed $500. and the impris !
onment thirty days.in the city prison; that |
laying all questions Of policy and expe-
uiency aside, the only question for the con |
sideration of the committee, was constitu- |
tional one, viz: Whether or not the legis
lature had Il right to delegate such power
to the city. In answer to the argument OF
Judge Burke, that such . thing would BIO
clearly unconstitutional and contrary TO
law, he called the attention of the com
mittee to the fact that Judge Burke had
offered 10 authority to support
his proposition. Then the speaker
maintained the proposition that
the Legislature had the constitutional right
to give municipal corporations exclusive
control and jurisdiction over mlsdemcanors
committed in their respective limits, but
to 90 beyond that would be in.contravention
Of section 10 of our bill OF rights. In sup
port of this proposition ho read an extract
from an opinion delivered by Judge WACO
ner in case reported in the 90 Mo. reports,
|, Dill. Municipal Corporations under sec.
Ilon 36S, p. so, new edition. He next
passed to discussion of our present
state constitution and argued that
: contained no provision inhib-
ting the Legislature from dele.
eating ocities,. or recorder cou tsthejur
notion asked for III the amendment in
question; that said constitution contained
no provision for a mayors or recorders
court co nomine, but that Judge Burke J
that said courts We're Constitu-
tional so long as their Jurisdiction
to Justice courts that in SO
doing he admitted himself out of court ,
that 1t was just as easy to maintain the
that giving mayors or record
er's court concurrent jurisdiction with
justice court IS unconstitutional, Us the
that giving said city courts ex- I
elusive control over all misdemeanors I
within their limits when the fine to be i'm
posed didn't exceed 500 and the imprison-
ment thirty days: But admitting, for /
arguments sake, Judge Burke's position /
correct, |. e., that city courts must 20 hand I
in hand with justices courts, and must
stand or fall with them, then the question i
arises, cannot the legislature under the {
constitution increase the jurisdiction of q
justices court? Here the speaker man. I
tanned that sec. 10 art. v of the constitu. !
ZION, which defines the Jurisdiction of q
Justices courts, contained no inhibition Of 9
tho present iurisdiction that the
very language OF said section
increase said Jurisdictions. In answer to
Judge Durke''s position, that the legislature
couldn't confer the right on JUSTICES courts {
70 impose any punishment beyond fine of
500, he would simply read said section,
which provides as follows. Justices of the
peace shall have jurisdiction in criminal
matters OF all cases where the penalty or
me 70 DO imposed by law may not be more
IMAM ior two hundred dollars, and
such other jurisdiction, criminal and civil,
as may DC provided bylaw, under such reg.
"a 4 a.
that under this provision of the con.
stitution the legislature so far by statute
had limited the jurisdiction of Justices
courts to only fine of not exceeding SoO0
that the decision Of the court of appenls do,
Gliding that justices Of the peace have the
power only to fine, and not imprison re-.
ierred to by Judge Burke, was only con.
strtiotlon OF the statute passed under said
section OF the constitution; that it was a
,a,, CONSTRUCTION OF said statute, and no
thai thu "n c would deny it; but
never passed upon the question as to
whether or not the Legislature. under said
section of the constitution, had the right To
increase the jurisdiction OF iustice conrts
In answer 70 Judge Burke's proposition'
that IT would be unconstitutional 10 allow
the mayors court the right to impose any
imprisonment; the speaker read from the
sr rsr NV v, Wv seventeenth legislature,
; wm'ch airvaIy permits the city Of Dallas to
70 exceed. fifteen days. He did This 10
snow the difference of opinion
between Judge Burke and The
seyenteenth Legislature, and was content
70 leave the matter rest there, as he was
ss ssn some OF the members Of the legis.
iature were present and had nut them.
selves upon record on that pont. that tho
question OF whether the county had bourht
the bridge at Dallas cut no figure in The
matter, ETC., this was only CONSTITUTIONAL
question; that inasmuch as the committee
nau .. already reported on the extension Of |
ny Guy iimi's, ne deemed II unnecessary to |
that he doomed the citizens OF tho oitsido
territory TO all intents and purposes citi.
Gems Of Dallas. Their interests were idsnti.
cal with Dallas; They wore proud Of Dsi.
las They did business In Dallas and en-.
q ~ III