The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-01-29
MR.. CHESLEY'S SPEECH.
An Excellent Presentation Of His Side
of the Case.
A Calm, Dlspassiona,e Argument.

one OF the hlrohetht NoA h''"N ~ '"''' "
Terrell's bill. The remarks we're calmly
aud deliberately given, and elected the At
ten,lon OF nll The senator said the hrst
question WAS on the constitutional objec-
ton raised by Senator Houston. 80 lar rs
the question Of permitting the governor 10
fix the venue, lac WAS oil tho opinion tue %.
lection was well taken, and the iriehus OF
this bill were willing u should be amended
ia that respect. In regard to ths punish
ment of the fence cutter Tor burning or
destroy ing fences, 10 was nlss argued by the
friends of the bill that this should be omit
ted These things need not he conaldereu'
| Now. dropping these subjects rom The
| bill, the question would bt, was the Iest
OF the pill Vulnerable to the clause
of the constitution clteu 10y
Senator Houston, tO-wit Ihnt me pih
contained more than one subject "i'hlh ,ne
| meaning of the constitutional inhiOl'on'
! The cnss cited by Senator Houston, whlle
| lawyers were found TO consider II, was
decision Of the military court-OtherWse
| known os the 'semic0lOn' cour,, ana an
good lawyera I'm reXag agree their DECISIONS
were not entitled 10 very great weight.
| The otner decision cited by the senator he
did not read. ard on examination Of II IL
| would be found that IN that case the cpurt
had not taken position against the prn-
| ciple involved ia the case n1w under con-
| alteration. The ptincipls Of law laid down
| by the courts Tor testing the constitutions
atty ola bill was thls Az we pTovls.on,s
! of the net should relate, directly or indirect
| ly, 10 the subject nnmed-havo mutual
connection ard not be foreign TO the
| title. TINS was the well settled test, me
| subject nsmeu in the title of this bill was
the REGULATION Of the grazing OF STOCK, :
| aud In investigating the consiitutionallty OF
the bill the only question 10 be investigates
I A.. A a
related directly or indirectly to such u reg
| ulation, Striking out those features ne
| had named, was there anything in the Dlll
| that did not relate indirectly. nj least 10
stock grazing and its regulations Certain.
| ly there was not. what is the OBJECT oil
! this provision of the constitution IL IL 10
1 ad rise the legislature and the people OF the
nature OF each particular bill 80 ns 10 pre-
vent the insertion of obnoxious clauses
| which otherwise might he enEraited there'
| upon aud become law; and to prevent com.
| binations whereby would be concentrates
! the vote OF the friends Il different moas'
I ures, none of which could pass singlyi thus
CAUSING every bill TO stand upon its own
| merits. This was the object as stated by
| Cooley ia constitutional limitations, fourth
/ edltion) page l73; also in Gliding w san
/ Antonio reported in a. Texas. page 5JJ;
| and again stated by the Texas court OF
appeals ia Alhrechs VS.. the state, IN the
| Texas court OF appeals, 2i6J Nov TINS
| question must 10 discussed in the light ot
the evls against winch the constitutional
! Inhibition is aimed, III there was any. pro-
/ vision in the bill that would TAI within the
matter Inhibited. by the philosophy OF the
! constitutional provision, IL was OonoAipus
-ntherwae no.?
In solyiny such query II was important
TO Keep in mind the rule OF constitution.
Interpretation, which was the presumption
ia always in favor at the constitution,
ality vi the aci involved, and the courts
never declsred an act unconstitutional un-
der this inhibition unless II Is clearly ana
certainly 20. In Stone vs.. Brown 1t u said
70 require too great PARTICULARLY IN the
caption would embarrasa LEGISLATION anu
subject II 10 be often defeated by judicial
construction when the statutes otherwise
might be unobjectionable and highly bene-
ncialh and again, that IL necessarily re-
ceiYed a liberal construction. The came
rule was to be found in the case oil Cid
dines vs. San d. utonio--upon which the
senator ,HoustoD) relied-in the AZ Texas
$50. where the following Language 10 used
by Chiei Justice Roberts: " The most liberal
construction was given by the supreme court
| OF this 81 ate in accordance with the general
! current of authority, to make the whole
law constitutional, when the part objected
to as infringing this part OF the constitution,
| could be considered as appropriately con-
nected with or subsidiary TO the main OBJ
iect OF the act rs EXPIRE ssed in the title"
| In two cases from the Texas supreme
court this rule had been further estab-
lished first, in Breen VS.. railroad company,
Al Texas, page 306, and IN Austin vs.. rail-
roai company. Justice Moore qAoted me
rule from Cooley on Constitutional Limita-
tiohs TO b.: None OF the provisions oi n
statute should be regarded as unc ,nstitn-
tional when they relate directly or iudi-
rectly 10 the same subject. In the doth
Texne, page 267 it was said: 80 long as
the provisions are of the same nature and
come lagitimatelv under one general do
nomination or object We cannot Say the 1ct
ia demonstrations" and this language is
used as the rule of law in Phillips VS..
Bridge company, Met, (Ky.) 222; Smith
VS.. Com monwealth, 8 Bush, ll2; STATE w
County Judge, Davis county, 1w0, 25t:
Insurance Company We. New York, .
5andf, 10: in all o! which states the con-
s,itrtionnl provision was identical with
that Of Texas. In the state OF New York :,
where provision OF the consu-
tuition is couched in nearly the same words
as our own, the highest courts Il the state
have laid down q rule In these words. The
degree of particularly with which the
title of an act is 10 express its subject IL not
defined in the constitution and rests IN the
discretion Of the legislature. Mutual III
surance Company vs.. New YORK, Seld.
al: Brewster vs Syracuse, 10 New York
Zig; People vs.. Briggs 90 New York; 56i,
and the same thing mad been said about a
similar constitutional provision in People
VS.. McCallon, Nebraska, lS2.
He cited these general rules OF ipterpre-
tstiou to be the test In the investigation OF
the bill before the committee. In the light
OF these he proposed To inquire into this
bill ana il IL contained a provision excluded
by those rules OF lava provision not indi-
reoty c0nnected with the subject matter, IL
should be stricken out
Section related 10 grazing upon I'M
inclosed lands and was the very snbject
matter of this title; about that there could
| be no doubt.
Section tlated 20 the fencing OF these
lands, and there could be no doubt but he
subject OF fencing was most intimately con,
nected with the regulation OF the grazing oil
stock, and IL was not vulnerable 10 the RUE
cited.
! Section provi led that stock should no.
| run at large under certain conditions, and
that was directly connected with the OBJ
| ject expressed in the title.
Section related to the water to be used
| BY this stock. and was certainly indirectly
connected with stock grazing.
Section 8 related to the number OF heed
permitted to run and was within the SUD
ject OF the title.
Section 7 related TO the ownership OF the
land upon which the stock grszed 80 do
| section 3.
Section 0 related to stock drifting 10 the
fall. 49,
Sections 10, II. ~, l3. IA. Is, 10, and Ia
related TO the detection and punishment OF
yiolators OF this law. regulating the grazing
Of stock: ana no one would claim, he mag
ined, that this part of the law. providing
punishment for the violation OF the act was
not directly or indirectly" connected with
the subject of the title.
In Battler vs. Howard, IL Texas, Si5. the
act under consideration was probate lag.
Its Title was: san act concei ming proceed
incs in the district court" This bill gave
the right OF appeal not orly from the dis
trict court, but also contained a provision