San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1888-09-15
HOGG HUNTING.
ATTORNEY GENERAL HOCG'S
LITTLE SCHEME TO OVER
AWE BExAR COUNTY
EXPOSED.
The Various Phases Of His Injunc-
ton Law Shown to be Fall
laciouS and UnconSti-

| The Various Phases Of His injunc-
ton Law Shown to be Fall
lacious and Unconsti-
tutional.
The LIGHT, short time since,
called attention to a law rushed
through in the last legislature, and
which, it is said, was introduced in
order to compel BeXar county to rec
ognize the Sunday law if there was
any possibility to do it.
The law referred to reads thus:
IAN act to confer the right of INDUCTION upon
the Stete to prevent breach OF the revenue
and penal law.
Be it enacted by the legislature of
the state of Texas:
Section 1st. That the full right,
power and remedy of injunction may
be resorted to, and invoked by the
state, at the instance of county or
district attorney or the at orney-gen-
eral to prevent, prohibit and restrain
the
VIOLATION OF ANY REVENUE
or penal law of this state.
Section 2. That the right and
remedy hereby provided shall be
cumulative of other laws now in force
in the state"
This was passed on May 18th, 1888,
and comes into force 80 days after adj
journment. That gives District At
torney George Paschal, or County At
torney Staffel the right to 60 before
Judge Noonan make an eXparue
statement and to secure an injunc-
ton that shall order any saloon-keep-
er, or his employees to close their sa-
looms on Sunday, and if they do not
comply with the injunction then the
offending saloon-keeper can be ar
rested and fined or imprisoned by the
judge for
CONTEMPT OF COURT.
If the district and county attorneys
fail to use this means of enforcing the
law then comes Atty. Gen. HOgg and
moves the court to grant the injunc-
ton. If Judge NOonan fails to do this
then the attorney general goes before
a superior court and get his injunction.
All this in theory Is very pretty, but
how about the practice. Aye, there's
the rub that is likely to rub the at
torney general down and bring his |
limits to a more reduced |
sphere. An injunction is a civil pro-
ceeding that cannot be applied to |
criminal cases, and there is no in
stance on record where this has |
hitherto been done. 1t is a writ issu-
ing out of Chancery, and the district |
Judge presiding at a criminal trial
can, in no sense be designated as a
chancellor.or as presiding over
CHANCERY COURT.
There is, however, a more cogent
reason why this injunction pro-
ceeding must fail. The viola
ton of the Sunday law is a
criminal otfense. In article l, section
10, constitution of the state of Texas,
it is provided that lin all criminal
the accused shall have a
pm bile trial by an impartial jury
and no person shall be held to answer
for criminal offense unless upon an
Indictment of a grand jury, except in a
case in which the punishment is by
fine and Imprisonment, otherwise than
II the peniteutiary." The injunction
is ex parte, the prisoner
nay be in ignorance of it until served
with the writ of injunction, and if he
nils to obey the writ the judge de-
,ides whether he is guilty or not gull
" and infiicts the punishment at his
This allows prisoner to
De punished by the judge for GRIM
nal Otfense, aud deprives him of his
Inherent
RIGHT OF TRIAL
~ jury, which in the bill of
lights, section Is, is guaranteed
% him in the following unmistakable
erms: The right of trial by jury
shall remain inviolate." Then again
he prisoner arrested fined and
punished by the judge for contempt
If court, would still be amendable to
he penalties for violating the Sunday
aw. This would place his liberty be
vice in jeopardy. This again is I'M
for the same bill of
lights; section IA says: mo person
or the same offence shall be twice put
II jeopardy of life of liberty nor shall
| person be put on trial for the same
'ffence after verdict of not guilty in
/ court of competent jurisdiction"
THE COURTS CONSTITUTE
he same offence" as the same
act or omission, without
eference to the name given
o it Vide Hirshfield vs.. the
State 18th App. 207.) You may
II one instance call the offence
contempt of court" and in the other,
violation of the Sunday law" but
10Th are in regard Ito the same crimi-
lal act or omission, and are practi-
ally the same offence
These facts are based upon the in
of one of the oldest and best