San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1884-01-31
FROM AUSTIN.
[From our spseIal oOnesPOndenl. ]

golden blhlrb DcIoIo icnsipb tno SsA
alto, which practically leaves that bod
where il started ut the opening OF tn
session. Tho House recognized Tia
fact that it was impractcable, II no
impossible, in single bill 10 provid
q remedy for these troubles, and
the Terrell bill was not unconstitu
tional il would DO imprac ticablc II
the extreme, and should it become
law would prove unwieldy, expen'
;ve and inefficient Not wishing u
revolutionize "the World, tho Flesl
and the Devil" with ono hugo bill
the special committee Of twenty. in
troduced several bills, one Of which
commands the county commission err
to open roads; another, TO prohibit
enclosing ano theirs lands, and finally
the penalty for fence cutting or the
destruction Of property. The bill re-
yising the civil statutes relating to
public roads has already passed. the
House. Some Of the speeches were
very animated, notably those Of Mr..
Chenoweth and Mr.. Patton. The de-
bate was upon the bill making it a
penal offense TO enclose the lands OF
another or Of the State, and Mr.. Pat.
ton offered O substitute making it a
felony. The vote on the substitute
which was lost by 3S to 80 was look
ed on by some as test Of the senti-
ment of the House. But this can
hardly be the case as it will be seen,
hardly quorum was present, while
the views of the absent members are
unknown. Mr.. Patton claims that
the sword should cut both ways, that
IL the hester be sent to the peniten-
Iiary for cutting fences, why, then,
not imprison the man who encloses
the public domain Mr., Chenoweth
argues that fencing the lands of an
other is only trespass, and it would
be unconstitutional to make it u fel
ony. If attempted, the enlightened
courts of the country would crush it.
The causes in the two cases he argued
we're widely different. One was done
II open day, the other in midnight
darkness. He did not care how far
n the line Of misdemeanors the pen
les went, but he would not consent
by his vote-that mistake as to
tho tenure by which man had a tt
10 to the possession of land should
,e made felony.
I have heard several members de-
lare their intention to vote against
he bill making fence cuttinga felony
,nless, it was made q felony to fence
mothers lands or the lands of the
State. This seems to be the only re-
naming problem to be solved. How
yer, it is to be hoped that they will
fleet q compromise and still make
he penalties sufficiently severe in
10Th cases to check the evil.
The bill amending the Revised Civ
Statutes relating to public roads
los passed the House. This bill will,
emove one of the chief causes of
ence cutting, 1t is too long to give
n full, but the following is the gist
# the bill:
The commissioners courts Of the
everal counties shall have full power
nd it shall be their duty to order the
aging out and opening of public
Dads when necessary; and to dis
continue or alter any road whenever
shall be deemed expedient, as here
natter prescribed; provided; that
no public road shall be al
cred or changed except for the pur-
rose of shortening the distance from
he point of beginning to the point
# destination. 1t shall be the duty |
# the commissioners to classify all !
,ublic roads in their counties into
irst second and third-class roads,
nd to act as supervisors of roads in
heir respective precincts as herein
fter provided, and commissioners
ourts may on their own motion,
where it is deemed necessary, open
lew raads or straighten existing ones.
each commissioner shall supervise
he public roads within his precinct
nee each year and shall receive as
compensation therefor three dollars
yer day for the time actually employ
ID in the discharge of his duties
,ropided, that no commissioner shall
receive pay for more than ten days
n each year. BE shall also make a
'eport to the rstregular term Of the
court, under oath, and
state: LIST The condition Of all roads