The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-02-09
AUSTIN LETTER.
A Walk Through the Legislative Foun.
dry, and Some
reflections Caused by Examining
Some Of the
Newly Turned Out Work Beauties aud
Flaws
Same Other Capital News Notes.
NO. ri


ArsT,Y, Feb. 7.-ISpecial Core
:, pondence l-Yesterday the senate b
providing for the payment of a
tached witnesses in felony cases can
up Tor its Shird reading. It ELECTED col
siderable discussion. There were sever.
changes sought to be made and many r.
stricuve features sought to be engrafled o
the bill before final passage. Under tn
existing law witnesses can be summone
in all such cases, kept day after day fror
their business, ordered from their home
to distant points and never receive one do
lar of compensation. The new order pro
poses to remedy this crying evil. But ther
was great variety OF opinions as to the char
acter of the remedy. For instance, SOM
urged that the expenses off the state woul,
thus be made entirely toJ great, to pay S
per day and 8 cents per mile for sucl
witnesses, and would probably swell The
fees from the state to 100000 annually in
stead OF $4,000, as at present. Others de
sired to limit the number OF paid witnesse.
IN the states service only; Others
again wanted the number not to exceed two
on each side, and yet Others Contepded that
The counties concerned, and not the state,
should pay the expenses. But how in the
name OF common sense and Justice, some
could have pressed TIE expectancy and
proprlety ana fairness OF the existing law
Is mystery, dnlesS he or they are some
how interested in the money-making bust.
ness OF the sheriil7s office. The enormous
bills tnat in so many counties make these
sheriis rich III term or two, issue largely
from the present defective law. But assume
that the change will not decrease The ex-
penses, aud surely 81 per day and cents
per nile Will tempt precious few TO travel
from nome and business, Canmoney be
better expended than in the direction of the
suppression or punishment Of crimes But
al present the law allows the sheriff the
amount paid by hm for carrying a witness
seized by attachment to testify, all neces-
sary expenses in travelling, and pays the
witness nothing at all, often turning him
loose aiar nom home and friends without
one dollar to return on. Year after year
trials are postponed, and this same little
shcHil Joker business is continued, and the
same inconvenience and outrage perpetual.
cd upon the citizens, who thus becomes dis
gusted and after all, is but poor witness
lor the STATE The sheriff gets ALL the state
nothing.
AS tor the propositions that the
states witnesses be paid and the
defendants not paid by the treasury,
thlsls such an enormity that it astounds
one to conceive that fair-mnded legisla.
tor could suggest. Such a restriction of
compensation would indeed put the knife
to the throat Of Justice, for it would thus
array all the power OF gigantic state.
with It's plethoric treasury, and supposed
TO he Just mother TO its citizens, against,
perhaps, very poor man-a prisoner in
chains, and it may be wholly innocent of
some vilialnous charges trumped up against
by some Designing foe, A proposition
To strange justice by such q method is not
creditable to the senator who suggested il.
Nor will it do to saddle the counties
wherein the offence may be tried, with
me expenses in such cases.
The mRtter OF crime is one that underl,gs
thc whole social and moral fabric of the
state, ana concerns alike every Individual
within its entire area, Such rule would
bankrupt muny counties of Texas pretty
quickly, to say nothing of the constitu-
iional taxation limit now imposed on them.
enclose you the bal as it finally passed
the senate.
\ most animated debate occupied the
senate tilne until Adjournment yesterday,
upon the bill whose ouieCt is TO subject ,.li
executive officers OF the state TO the ouera.
ton OF mandatory and restraining writs.
Az tho last regular session in February,
1851, the following law was enacted,
viz; mo court OF this state shall have
power authority, ,or jurisdiction to issue
the %rlLsot mandamus or Injunction. or
any other mandatory or compulsory writ
or process against any Of the officers of the
executive departments of the government
OF this state TO order or compel the per.
iormanoe OF amy act or duty which by The
laws of this state they, or either of them,
are authorl2edSto perform, whether such
ACT or uuty ne judicial, ministerial, or dis.
Cretionary.'
This law, and this particular section Gl
was passed as sort of restraint against
the then effort of the Federal courts In this
state against the commissioner of the gen.
eral land office to enforce the Mercer colony
contract. IL is utterly worthless before the
Federal courts. And now its repeal is
sought, this inspiration or animus being
to operate against Mr.. Commissioner
Walsh, and to compel him by writ of man
damus to do what he contends he has the
Liberty OF now refusing to do under the
margnoi discretion allowed him. 1t was
commended by those favoring the bill that
" ought TO be passed because the
Law, as II now stands, violates the spirit
OF the constitution, which saws that the
courts shall stand open for every injury
done to one in his person, lands, goods.
etc, anu because 1t would lead to ali man.
ner OF favorilism and corruption. On the
other hand 1t was urged that the law of
1881 Is a wise one, because without il the
governor or any other official elected NV The
people, might be forced through The courts
by some sheriff With his posse, to 90 TO iaiI for
refusing 10 do what his Judgment and con-
science declined doing; and because further.
such Official would be annoyed here and
there by conflicting parties, one party or
court mandamuslng him to do certain
tnlhg, another enioining him from it. The
bill was defeated, so the law with its lannon's
section 4, remains as ii was passed two
years ago, ana Mr.. Walsh, goes On with his
discretionary powers
But the intensest interest existed in tho
house yesterday on the discussion of senate
bul to amend articles $50 and 1871, of the
Code OF Criminal Procedure, allowing De.
iendants to testify in their own behaifini
criminal cases. These iayoring the bill, of
when there was majority and a minority
report, SAID 1t was no innovation, but that il
was calculated to brush away the
eooweos OF prejudice, and was in
keepmS WIN progressive legislation
on the SUBJECT in other states. AS the law
Is, q prisoner may be convicted under The
testimony OF an enemy when he knows
mat the testimony is wholly wrong; that
all possible light ought to be had in a trial,
and that the defendants testimony ought
TO be received for at least what IL is worth,
Fer contra, 1t was argued that under The
operation OF the proposed measure il was
only the base criminal that could be bene.
hted and that ii would throw too wide omen
the doors OF perjury. The bill was killed,
and. as think, TO the shame and the old.
fogyism of a legislature that
could not rise equal to the
newer lights of Che present age.
The Federal courts and enlightened iuris.
prudence generally has progressed Tar be.