The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-07-10

for his approval, he must, under the
sanction OF his official oath, pass upon
its constitutionality. The passage of
tho bill Is the affirmation of its consti.
nationality by the different factors of
the legislative department. Notwith-
standing such affirmation the bill
might be unconstitutional; but still
there would naturally be strong pre-
sumption in favor OF its constitution
atty.
Governor Ireland and the Senate
and the House of Representatives OF
the Nineteenth Legislature by its
passage and approval decided that
certain act entitled, can act to amend
Chapter 2, Title 2, OF the Penal Code OF
the State OF Texas, adding thereto Ar
tlcle $780," and popularity known as
the "bucket-s shop" law, was constitu-
tional. This same House, Senate, and
governor, during the same session,
also passed and approved, in similar
manner, five other acts of am endment,
amending, under similar captions or
titles, other portions OF the revised,
civil and criminal codes OF the State by
adding thereto other articles (see acts
Of 1885, Chapters 50, 60, 60, 90, a, and
lily.
Again, the Eighteenth Legislature,
at Its regular session in 1888, passed, in
like manner, seven acts OF amend
mont, amending, under like kind Of
caption or title existing, parts OF the
REVISED, civil and criminal codes by
the addition OF other articles. (See
acts of 1888, Chapters 80, 50, 50, Is, 96,
l05 and 90). And the same Legislature,
at its special session in 1884, In the
same manner, under similar titles,
ANf ~ IL sNNaN
amending the REVISED Civil and
other articles. (Seo acts OF 1884,
Chapters IL and 2S).
During Governor Roberts admins
trations, in 1879 and 1881, the Legs
lature, with his approval, passed in
the same way and under like captions
Is acts of amendment amending por-
lions of the Revised Civil and Crimi-
nal Codes by the addition OF other arti-
cles. (See acts Of 1881, Chapters, 30,
SIS, 60, Y, SO, l02, SO and SO, and see acts
OF 1879, regular session, Chapters l20,
III, 1l9, 1874 and IA, and see acts of the
special session Of Same year, Chapters
40 and AZ.
Thus 1t appears that this mode OF
adding to the Revised Civil and Crimi-
nal Codes by amendment has been in
vogue since 1875, receiving theapprobs-
ton OF two governors and four Legis-
latures. During that time ihe afore-
mentioned acts OF amend.
ment, amounting in ali to
80, have been passed and
approved, and every one OF these acts
are subject to precisely the same con-
stitutional objections as the "bucket-
shop" act, lately overturned by Judge
Hurt. By these 30 acts of amendment
90 different articles, upon great va
riety OF subjects and OF every degree
OF Importance, have been added TO our
revised civil and criminal codes, none
of which, excepting the "bucket-shop"
act, have been questioned up to the
present time, so far AS my knowledge
goes. Has the Legislature, in the
passage of these 81 articles, covering a
wide field of legislation OF varying i'm
portance, violated some constitutional
inhibition, and are all the articles ac-
cordingly null and void? If the
cket-shop" act IL void 80 are all
the others void, for they are all alike.
1t will be seen, In view OF this, that
the question is q serious one. Are
four Legislatures, two governors and
ex-Supreme Court judges all wrong,
and Is Judge Hurt right,or vice versa?
/ am not assuming to decide the ques-
ton, but merely exercising the right
to ask it.
The validity or invalidity Of the
"bucket-shop" article and the So other
added articles, depends on the proper
construction OF sections IS, SO and 43,
of article 3, of the constitution Of 1876.
Section So provides, that no bill shall
contain more than one subject, which
must be expressed in the title OF the
bill.
Section SO provides, that no law shall
be amended by references to Its title,
and requires that the section amended
shall be re-enacted and published at
length.
But section IS provides, that In tho
adoption of any digest or any revision
OF the laws, the Legislature shall not
be limited by sections IS and SO.
Under the exception contained In
section 4S, the Revised Civil and Grim
inal Codes were passed in 1879, under
captions articles, containing no speci-
fications of any part OF the subject
matter OF such codes. IL the Leg
islature, in adopting.the Revised Civil
and Criminal Codes, was free from the
limitations contained in sections 80 and
SO, is 1t subject to those limitations
in adding to these codes a single ar
ticle, or any number OF articles, chap
ters or titles?
Judge Hurts decision being mat
ter OF considerable interest, / was lead
to Investigate it, and having investi-
gated 1t, concluded to reduce to writ
Ing what l found In the course of that
Investigation, leaving the reader to
draw his own conclusion. Respect.
| fully, LAWYER.