Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-01-24
CHESLEY'S SPEECH.
Senator Chesley Of Austin County Sus
tains the Terrell Bill.

On Saturday, 18th inst, the senate
being in committee of the whole hous,
for the consideration of the Terrell bill
and the fence.cutting troubles gener
ally, Senator Chesley rose In his plac,
and addressed the committee an fol
| lows:
MIR. CHAtRstAN-The first question
| TO be consi?ered Is the constitutions
objection raised by Senator Houston
| So far as the question OF permitting the
governor to fix the venue, he Was ol
the opinion the objection was well
taken, and the friends of his pill were
willing il should be amended in that
respect. In regard to the punishment
OF the fence.cutter for burning or de-
stroying fences, 1t was also argued by
The friends of the bill that this should
be omitted. These things need not be
considered. Now, dropping these sub
iects from the bill the question would
be. WIS the rest of the bill vulnerable
to the clause of the constitution cited 10y
Senator Houston, to-wit: That the bill
contained more than one subject with
in the meaning of the constitutional
inhibition. The case cited by Senator
Houston, while lawyers were bound To
consider it, was decision OF the militia
nv court--otherwlse known as the SEM
icolon' court. and all good lawyers In
Texas agree their decisions were not
entitled to very great weight. The
other decision cited by the senator he
did net read. and on examination of IL
il would be found that in that case the
court had not taken position against
the principle involved in the case now
under consideration. The principle of
law laid down by the courts for test
ing the constitutionality of bill
WAS this: All the provisions of the act
should relate, directly or Indirectly, To
the subject named-have a mutual
connection and not be foreign to the
title. This was the well settled test.
The subject named in the title of this
bill was the regulation of the graz
ing of stock, " and in investigating the
conslitutionality of the bill the only
question To be investigated was
whether all the provisions of the bill
re ated directly or indirectly to such
4 regulation. Striking out those fea-
lures he had named, was there any
thing in the bill that did not relate in
directly, at least, t. stock grazing
and It's regulations? Certainly there
was not. What is the object of this
provision of the constitution? 1t Is to
advise the legislature aud the peo-
Pile of the nature of each particular
bill so AZ to prevent the insertion
of obnoxious clauses which otherwise
might be engrafted thereupon and
become law; and to prevent cOmbina-
tions whereby would be concentrated
the vote of the friends of different
measures, none of which could pass
siuRly; thus causing every bill To stand
upon its own merits. This was the Oh
jet as stated 10y Cooley in Consttu-
'iOnal Limitations Fourth edltion)
page l73; also in Giddings VS.. San An
tonic, reported in AZ Texas, page 500;
and again stated by the Texas court of
appeals in ilbrecht vs.. the state, in the
8 Texas court of appeals, PIG, Now this
question must be discussed in the
light of the evils against which the
constitutional inhibition is aimed. If
there was any provision in the bill
that would fail within the matter in
hibited, by the philosophy of the con-
stitutlOnal provision, IT was obnoxious
-otherwise not
- In sol uiu,-s,u,h-a nparv it was i'm.
- pt'!u'H's.fs'se must Y, ralrIoseuIs of
P'ltaht To Keep in mind the ~
institutional Interpretation, which.
was ehe presumption is always in fa.
ror VI the cnnstitutionaiity of the act
ihvolSeu, and the courts never de-
..aieu IN act unconstitutional under
e.,,.i ,,iiioiliou unless IL is clearly aud
u,, 's''niy 50, On, In Stone Va. Brown il
ticmI aai": ~ require too great par
si'u'arlty IN The caption would embar- |
60 ',' s,slation aud subject it to be- |
,,nu defeated by Judicial construc.
eru,i.o lhe statutes 9TH
,hI. might be unobjection-
md oo ihu hlEhly heneficial;u
, IN, "taih' Ihat 1t necessarily received
,y.. ' -. ~, construction. The same rule
y. 90 :" We round IN The case of Giddiuvs
,t,,r III ,Ahtohlo-upon which the sen.
,sg I'tous'oh) relied-ln the 18th Texas
Is.d hu IN, .ne following language is
ms, a. 'hiei Justice Roberts: 9TH.
,,va, i,'.,ai construction has been
t.t.' y! the supreme court of this
nrr,n' -, "oeordhuce with the general
vhnia VI authority, TO make the
'n y, Jaw constitutional. when th,.
+ ,b. ,o,e 20 hs Infringing this part
rod ,e constitution could be consId
r snh 10 appropriately connected with
ct -. 10 the mnin object of thu, !
~ as express, in The titIe.h '"' r
an .w9 cases from the Texas sunrem. v
H., M RUE hau been further pst,,h II
,v urst' In Breeu vs. Rail Dad a M. s.
my, IA Texas, page 3OB, and in .ma r
!" Vs. ha.lrotd COMPANY. .Justice q
'"re quoted the ri from 1,onI,w e y,
Institutional Limitations TO W. %
~ ne OF the prUvisi rs of ~ st.tut, u
,'' ne regarded as unconslitutiona1 a
a n' thty relate dir. ely or inI' a.
,.y 10 TIE same subject.u In In Ia
~ lexas, page 207, il was a.id. Re
W iohg as the proyl,ions ara ne H.. of
iie nature and come I.rit;nna,.I' ot
urr one general d.uominaiinn Id
,. live we cannot say the act is unc,n. al a.,
Ihe r',o ana TINS iangu' ge is used ~.
i.in me rule of law in PhiIllps w Ill
liz com bany, 2 Met. iKy.'J 2.9. NJ
'''n s W. Commonwealth, Bn.n pa
|, o'a.e W.. County Judge. D,vi, Ell
NY, iowa, 2Si; Insuralc. cam. we
~ vs. New York, 5 Sandf 10. In ~
,, "hich states the constituti,nai sal
was identical with thar -, re
.as' In the stale of Nav vi, RE
n, u provision OF the con,titu,inm WI
'uoned In nearly the same word sta
I ,ha own, the highest courts ma .
ne state have laid 49, Let
i Ell ~ these words. The degree If ma
acuiarity with which The iii. Of me-
Nv. ~ 10 express lis subject 10 mo, I'm
Ihe d;sa ane constitution and rests po
uni i msnn OF the Legislature. iiIon