Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-03-07
sCArRIEG INDICTMENT INDICTED.
The Action of the Members of the Court of
Appeals Defended.
FORT WORTH, TEX March 6, 1883.


FORT WORTH, TEX March 6, 1883.
To the Editor of the Gazette.
With careful scrutiny have read the
article of Senator Houston in the issue of
March s, relative to the action Of the
members Of the Court of Appeals men
toned by hiW, particularly Justices
White and Wilson, and while am willing
to admit with him that there are defects
in the judiciary system as 1t now stands
aslto our courts of last resort, yet can't
agree with him in visiting the defects
upon the instruments Of the law instead
of the law Itself. The members of the
Court of Appeals are no more to blame
for not being so constituted as to agree
with q tribunal Of concurrent Jurisdiction
as to the matters referred to by him IN
his lengthy,s flVe-column Arrangement,
than were the two clocks which the
monarch of half the world at one time
| Chsrles V of Spain-in Indicating his
| lofty eminence in favor of his son, tried in
vain to make run alike. This monarch
| became convinced that half OF his lifetime
had been spent in bloody inquisitiors
| into the convictions of men and spent in
vsin, bat never WAS fully convinced till
he left this business and tried it on the
two clocks in his retreat in the convent
with the monks. Then his conclusions
were: ''What q fool have been to spend
half my life in trying to torture men to
think alike, when can't even make two
clocks run alike and keep the same time"
Now, IN my humble judgment, the defects
| in our judiciary system arises from the
fact that the Court of Appeals were given
civil Jurisdiction at all so as to come
in collision with the Supreme court for,
whenever this state of things occur,
It is inevitable that there will
be confusion. Then If the fault is In the
law itself why srraign the instruments OF
the law? The answer Of the honorable
Senator, with respect to one count IN his
"scathing INDIGNANT" is that Justices
White and Wilson have been guilty of e
pslpsble violation of section s, article 3,
of the constitution, which reads to the
effect that the opinions of the Court Of
Appeals in civil cases shall not be pub
lished unless "the publication of such
opinions be required by law" Then he
starts out with an axiom that there are
two sides to every opinion, but there is
but one side to fact, "snd with facts
alone do l deal" And what is the "fsctn
that he deals out to us2 Why, that the
| IchuS N5 hUOfG Slhktus DuI
we must construe this fact as an express
sion of law as we would any other ex;
preston. What is meant by this? 1t is
not so plain but what it may be con-
strued. The honorable gentleman con-
strues it into crime to publish what has
been made rule OF property. These de-
cisions are rules Of property rights and to
publish these decisions is violation of
| In rzJbi0 f, TrTu q xuolt N
other journals in this state, are guilty OF
under the construction of the honorable
/ gentleman from the Panhandle. Now is
it to be so construed? Is this the sense
OF the article? II so, to what extent must
we go in giving such an effect to this
clause? will answer him by ying if
his construction is correct then that
clause in section s Of the bill OF rights in
the same instrument he quotes, which is
to the effect that no law shall ever be
passed curtaiIing the liberty Of spsech or
the press, and that every person shall be
ct liberty to speek, write or publi.h his
opinions on any subject, is 8 Dullity.
Thus we see we have one clause in our
constitution nullifying another, unless
we can reconcile them, and it is our duty
to do so if we can. Now can We not do
SOP II we can then the honorable gentle
man may be answered as to one fact by
another fact. Was it meant that these
opinions (?) were then in their incipency
-even before their inclpiency-so weak
or Wilfully wrong, or that the tribunals to
be created by this law so wofully incom.
petent that they should never see the
light? Such seems to be the conclusions
of the srraigner Of this law. II so why
did this "lawyer of president vision"
place that in the constitution? Why p ace
something there that would be violstive
of the bill Of rights referred to? Why en-
danger the Fort Worth GAZETTE
and all similar newspapers of
enterprise in this state snd subject
them to q trial similar to that
that the good John Wilkes suffered dur
ing the ministry of George the III. over
"Albion's realm"-who was elected again
and agaiu to Parliament, and as often
turned on. by the Lords in obedience to the
Kings wish, but as often returned by the
sturdy English who favored free speech !;
and thus was it made forever prime fac
tor in our bill of rights to publish what
you pleased. The honorable gentleman
from the far west surely remembers that
there was at one time settled upon the
breast of our English ancestry over that
"Albion realm" of which he speaks SO
eloquently in his close-What was known
as half secret court, known as the "Star
Chamber" which for centuries enabled