Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-04-17
A Proceeding to Nullify the En-
tire Criminal Code Of Texas.
One Dick Duncan, Sentenced for Muir
der, Brings the Case Before the Uni
ted States District Court.
The Hlegality of Texas Criminal Laws, it is
Alleged. Dates Back to Legislative
Action in 1876.


the most curious legal proceedings which
has ever come to light in this part Of the
country, and which. if prosecuted to its
ultimatum, will be no less startling than
sensational in its results, has been COM
menced in the United States district
court IN this city. The proceeding has
for its object the complete nullity of
the entire criminal code of Texas,
as established and practiced since
1876. Even the most casual and
unconcerned can readily see what a state
of anarchy would be forced upon the
people of Texas if the Federal court sus-
tains the allegations contained in the re-
markable petition, which was filed for
hearing to-day. The issue of the validity
of the penal code of criminal procedure
is raised in the application for habeas
corpus to secure the release from custody
of Dick Duncan. who, it will be re-
called, was convicted by the state dis
trict court of Maverick county sitting at
Eagle Pass n few months ago, of the
murder of the Williamson family, whose
horribly mutilGted bodies were found
floating in the Rio Grande. Duncan was
indicted on several counts of murder,
and on his first trial was convicted of
murder and the
THE DEATH SENTENCE WAS PRONOUNCED
upon him by Judge Kelso. He has been
in jail in this city since sentence was
passed for safe keeping, pending the de-
cision of the court of appeals upon his
case. This application for a writ of
habeas corpus is new route by which he
expects TO secure not only his own re-
lease and immunity, but to also establish
BRAT the state of Texas is absolutely
without statute under which any Grim
inal act can be corrected or punished.
The application was first made TO Circuit
Judge Pardee at New Orleans on the 10th
inst, and Judge Pardee ordered
that hearing on it be had at the
spring term of the United States
district court for Weste m Texas, which
opens here on May ). Some of the best
legal talent, not only OF Texas, is en-
gagged on the side of Duncan, but the
distinguished Gen. Roger a. Pryor of
New York has been retained to assist in
pleading for the alleged murderer, and
it is understood that the petition is the
handiwork mainly of Gen Pryor and
Mr.. Il. J. McMinn of this city. The
case will eventually be carried to the
United States supreme court. The ap-
plication is frightfully voluminous doc
ument, and after reciting that the appli-
cant is bone fide citizen of the United
States, who is unjustly deprived of his
liberty, proceeds substantially as fol-
lows:
''Tbat the Texas constitution of 1876
provided that when the legislature codi-
Rn1 n laxr oFk he,
released from the operation of certain
restrictions upon the enactment of bills,
but that the fact that they were re-
leased from the operations of these por-
lfi6ns of the constitution served to en-
phasize the operations of other sections;
that among these latter was the section
requiring the legislature in passing bill
to read it on three several day -
The applicant then goes on to state
that the coditiers were regularly ap-
pointed under the oonstitu ton and sub
mitted to the legislature bill entitled,
Senate>. bill No. 90, the present penal
coaeHha code OF criminal procedure;
sttifAt said bill was referred to commit
tee and duly considered by the senate,
but that wnen it reached the house il was
not referred to committee, as
CONTEMPLATED BY THE CONSTITUTION,
but section l of the bill, of the Penal
Code, was referred to a committee of
fifteen, and that section 2, embracing
the code of criminal procedure, was re-
feTred to another committee of fifteen.
Further, that sections and were not
referred to any committee, nor was the
bill in its entirety referred to a commit
tee. And again the applicant sets up
that this bill was not read on three several
days in either branch of the legislature,
as required by the constitution, although
the time of its taking effect was post
poned ninety days. Again the applica-
ton alleges that the bill was not consid-
cred on three several days by either
branch of the legislature in lieu of three
several readings. The next allegation is
that no journal of either house was kept
as required by the constitution, and he is
driven for information to certain printed
books, which are incapable of verihcation
by any record, and he insists that he is
entitled to that record, because if it had
been kept he could indisputably establish
what he now alleges TO be- true, namely;
that the two branches of the legislature
never came to an identical legislative in
tent on the final passage of said
Dill. lie tnen says Cnat the
bill was never enrolled, but
that the enrolment was done away
with by virtue OF a certain joint resolu-
ton adopted in each house, but which
was not signed by the presiding officer of
either house, nor by the governor, and
which
NEVER HAD THE POWER OF LAW.
It is next set up that the amendments
to the bill were never enrolled, and that
again, on April %, 1879, the legislature
passed an act providing for the ''print-
ing, binding and distribution of the
codes, but afterward inserted an amend
ment providing for q codifier, thus alter
ing the purpose of the bill, and intro
duced subject. different from that ex-
pressed insthe title of the bill and di-
verted the appropriation for t'print-
ing, binding and distributing. -
He next asserts that the ap-
pointment OF q codifer with the powers