The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-01-31

He moved the proviout question on
the section and the substitute.
The question was not seconded.
The Parsons substitute was with
drawn.
Mr.. Kendall offered substitute: That
indictments may be found and pre-
sented by grand Jurors in the counties
OF districts where the offenses are COM
mitted, on statement of county judges
and district attorney that the law
can't be enforced there when the
change shall be made to Travis coun-
ty; provided that the jurisdiction of
the district court of Travis county
shall cease upon filing of statement
by the district judge and district or
county attorney, who made the state
ment that in their opinion no cause
exists calculated to prevent Il fair trial
in such county or district.
Mr.. Fisher, of Harris, spoke in favor
of the substitute.
The Kendall substitute was lost
and the question recurring on the
motion to strike out section "a of the
bill, it was struck out by vote of "a
to 27.
Section 4, the emergency clause, was
made section and adopted.
MIR. Foster moved to strike out sec
ton 1 and insert Il substitute he
offered therefor. lie said it was not
unlikely the House would be called
on to consider a bill under which a
pasture owner could take his gun to
protect his pasture. The state should
stand between the property owner
and any man Who would destroy it.
Any man who has paid his taxes
should be protected, and we should
not allow one man any higher privi-
leges in taking the law into his own
hands than another. The man who
cuts a wire even on a school section
which does not belong to him, under
this bill is made felon, but the pas
ture man who is enclosed, is to be
allowed to cut his way out of lands of
the same kind. He was opposed TO
such measure az was calculated to
multiply excuses for homicide.
The Foster amendment provides
that wilfully cutting or destroying
any fence, whether lawful fence
or not on land not his own, or on land
owned or legally controlled by the
person enclosing i, shall be deemed
guilty of a felony, and subject to one
y
the fence cut or destroyed is on or
around public land not owned Or con-
trolled by the person enclosing it, the
offense shall be deemed Il misdemeanor
subject to fine in double the amount
of the property destroyed. Further
defines what shall constitute lawful
fence as in existing laws.
Mr.. WurZbach spoke in support OF
the amendment, and Mr.. Swan and
Mr.. Douglas against it.
Mr.. Foster, of Grayson, argued that
the substitute would render the OBJ
jects of the bill, and of this session of
the legislature was nugatory as to
providing remedies for the evils
complained of as to Illegal enclosures.
He argued that it was in some re-
spects unfair and impracticable in its
operations, as the fence cutter could
not be reached or did not care for a
fine, and double the value of the prop
erty destroyed would amount practic-
ally to only trifling sum for mere
section of the fence which was cut.
He argued that the true remedy Was
not to justify the cutting of fences
under any circumstances, and to pass
law that would be a terror to any
man cutting fences on property which
does not belong to him.
Mr.. Browning spoke in a similar
line of argument with Mr.. Foster, of
Grayson. The law should apply to
cutting fences around public as well
as private lands.
Mr.. Lakewood spoke in like line
of argument with Mr.. Browning, and
with some dramatic effect, against the
amendment of Mr.. Foster, of Lime
stone.
Pending the discussion, the House
adjourned until 1880 p. m, for the
memorial services in memory of the
late representatives, Leo and Tucker.