San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1888-03-23

the repeating clause Of this title-pro
vided, that any law passed by the six
teenth legislature 10 conflict with an,
provisions OF this act, shall be the Law
Of the state, this act to the contrary not
withdrawing.
That Is, all laws passed by the six
teenth legislature stand, irrespective o
any general repeating clause in the act
Final Title"
Sayles and Sayles say that article 1865;
a. (Acts March 20; July "a, 1879 controls
acts 1923 OF Aug. %, 1876, so far al
there is any conflict, but says not one
word concerning article 1864, OF Aug. 90
and which reads as follows:
Article 1864. In each incorporated
city, town or village each ward shall
constitute an election precinct.
Now, II article 1868 q, OF 1879, con-
trolls articles ]662.3. of 1876, according to
Sayles and Sayles, and nothing Is said
concerning article 1864, does 1t not leave
the inference that article 1864 remains
in force, not being controlled by the act
of 1879, and that each ward in an incor-
porated town or village must continue
to constitute an election precinct?
But the matter is not left to mere con-
lecture. In Ssyles Revised Statutes Of
1888 appears article 1864, THE IDENTICAL
ARTICLE 1864 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF
1876, which Judge Wurzbach says
amends the article In the laws Of 1876,
and permits the division to be made.
The LIGHT lays no claim to legal aocu-
men. Where legal luminsries disagree
who shall determine? Sayles and Sayles
say that only articles 1923 Of act 1876,
are controlled by article 1868 q, act of
1879, and that art. 1864 Is In force; and
that article says, each city ward cOnsti-
tutes at election precinct. Judge Wurz-
bach says that the act of 1879 authorizes
the division. Now, when the executive
of the republican party for
Bexar county examine the matter will
they follow the ruling Of the honorable
judge of the county court of Bexar
county, who 10 himself an interested
party, or will they accept the authority
Of the oldest Texas law writer's living,
and decide that the city wards cannot
be divided?
Sayles and Sayles incorporate this
article, 1864 of statutes of 1876 among the
articles In force in 1883, as remaining in
tact after the revision OF 1879 BY the six
teenth legislature. And the final title |
act Of that legislature says that all laws
passed by the sixteenth Legislature re-
main in force, Notwithstanding anything |
In said final title act
II the LIGHT is in error in its editorial, |
which has evoked the criticism and con
demnation of Judge Wurzbach, 1t is in |
error in good company, and throws the
burden Of its errors upon the shoulders
IF Ssyles and Ssyles, the acknowledged
aw book authorities of Texas.
If it was the intention Of the honor
lble judge Of the commissioners court
% correct the LIGHT and give the facts
n the premises, how does it happen
hat in citing the revised statutes of
S79 no mention was made of article
664, which expressly declares that each
ward OF An incorporated city must con.
titute one election precinct. Article
1858 a. is cited, which does not bear up.
IN the point at issue, and article 1864 is
eft severely alone, which emphatically
declares Just what the LIGHT said in
ts editorial Of March 81. Was the
Times quotation from an expurgated
dition of the revised statutes Of 1879, in
which article 1864 was left out; or, was
is quotation from the revised statutes
Intended to mislead? The LIGHT awaits
on that point, and citation
o the edition in which article 1864 is
Eliminated from the statute book. 1t
ertainly is not eliminated in Sayles and
Jay les revised civil statutes, edition of
1888.
AN INSII r To IRIGLMEN