The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-01-31
HOUSE.
HALL OF REPRESENTATIVES,, !
Ir.1rTsr Try Ian 30 1901


| HALL OF REPRESENTATIVES,
AUSTIN, Ten, Jan 30 1884. )
House met at 10 am.
Prayer by R5Y. DR.. Smooth, chap
lain of the Senate.
The House took up the special Or
der, substitute House bill Nos. 2, 3, 8
and 8, to prescribe the punishment
for the Wanton and wilfJtl cutting, in
luring or destroying fences, and to fix
the venue of prosecution
Mr.. Chenowith offered an amend
ment that it shall constitute no offense
for any person owning or residing
upon land enclosed by the fence of
another who refuses permission to
such person for free ingress and
egress to such land for such person to
open passage through such elclo-
sure.
ADOPTED. Ayes so; noes AZ.
BY Mr.. ArmiStead: To amend sec
tion 1, line 8, by striking out the
words whether lawful fence or not"
and inserting provided fence in the
meaning of the act is Il structure of
wood, wire or both, or other material
intended to prevent the passage of
stock cattle, sheep. hogs or goats
A substitute offered by Mr.. Barry,
defining the fence to be one in the
meaning Of existing statutes, was
lost.
Mr.. Moore, of Mcclellan, moved, as
a substitute, to strike out sections 1
| and 2.
Mr.. Moore, drawing a picture of the
workings of large fences along the
river, argued that man would have
good cause to cut a fence to get water
for his COWS. so as to have milk for
his family suffering for milk of the
COWS, which would perish for want
OF water under the provisions of the
any woman whose husband would not
cut Il fence under such a circum-
stance.
Mr.. Taylor favored the Armistead
amendment. It was adopted viva
! Voce.
The question being divided as to the
Moore amendment on a motion to
table the proposition to strike out pre-
vailed as to the first section.
The House refused, however, to
table the motion to strike out the sec
ond section.
| Mr.. Taylor argued that we had law
sufficient already to prevent wire cut
ting but for the fact that public senti-
me0t, whether that sentiment was
right or wrong preponderated through
sympathy in favor of the OffenSe. So
he argued that such Offense5 should be
tried by change Of venue, where the
| immediate sentiment where the Of
| tense was committed will not effect
the trial. If the law has not been en-
forced under the present penalties it
will be still less so in the counties
where the offenseS are committed and
sustained by the sentiment Of the i'm
| mediate community.
| The section provides for change of
venue to Travis county.
| Mr.. Parsons offered as substitute:
Indictments may be found and pre-
scented by grand jurors and offenders
prosecuted under this act in any coun-
ty in any judicial district in which the
o1tense is committed, or in any county
in any adjoining district, and the fore
man of the grand jury holding sessions
in the several counties shall have pow
er to issue attachments for witnesses
to any county in the district in which
the crime has been committed, or in
which the session of the grand jury is
being held.
Mr. Brown spoke in favor of the
bill as it is.
Mr. Douglas spoke against the Sec
ton, and the Parsons substitute both,
and in favor of striking out the section.
Mr.. Robinson was opposed to the
change OF venue, except in more eX-
IRENE cases than the trial of fence cut
ters, as good and reliable jurieS
could be obtained, he commended, in
every county. The expense of such
nI, % I,
enable county attorneys to impoVerish
them would be driven from the cOun-
try. 1t would be a violation of the
rights of local government, and the
privilege granted every man to be
tried by jury of his peers.
Mr.. Lakewood argued that the bill
did not absolutely require removals of
trials, except in extreme cases. There
were sections where, if men were al
lowed to - r ed for fence cutting, the
statute would be nullity.
Mr.. Brown argued that the bill was
mOnStrOuS, as it would subject men to
changes Of venue for the sake OF mere
sentiment in a community. Good men,
and women, too, could be found outside
of all such sentiment. applause and
laughter)
Mr.. Finch argued against the pro-
position to change venue as being a
reflection upon the grand juries of the
county, who, he argued, despite any
sentiment of the cnmmunitY, were
men sworn to do their duty and would
do it regardless of the ambushed SEN
timent in favor of any kind of often
ses. The bill would give the stock
men black flag to wave over the
neStorS under threats to send them to
A ustin. He was not the enemy to
the pasture men, and believed in all
parties having their contests before
the officers of their own counties.
Mr.. Patterson thought the PROPOSE
ton of the committee better than the
substitute.
Ca message from the Senate an
nounced the passage by that body of
substitute for House bill No. 80, max
ing an appropriation for commission
ers from Texas to the Worlds Indus
trial and Cotton Exposition at New
OrleanS.)
Mr.. Swan, taking into consideration
the chances of conviction, argued by
mathematical calculation that the
ends of justice were too liable to be
defeated without change of venue in
extreme cases. He took this position
although he was a great stickler for
the rights Of the people to home trials.
He hoped it was not true, but he had
seen it stated in some of the papers
that the fence cutters in one of the
counties of his district had threatened
to hang any county attorney who pro-
secuted them. We were at all events
contending with a desperate evil
which required desperate remedies.
In answer to Mr.. Moore. he said: do
think there is a combination of
fence cutters in my county, from the
fact that men have been seen there in
large bodies.
Pending discussion House adj
journed till O'Clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Speaker Gibson and quorum pres
ent.
4 The House resumed the considera-
ton of the bill pending from adjourn
4 nlent.
Mr.. Etheridge spoke in opposition to
the first section of the bill and the Par
sons substitute. If we are to have
either of two evils he preferred the
bill of the committee. He argued that
this plan of chsnging Venue WAS only
a reorganization OF The odioIIs plaa of
reconstruction under the Pease policy.