The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-12-14
JUDGE MORRIS SUSTAINED
The Supreme Court Makes Ruling In the
Williamson COun Prohibi ion Case.


Williamson COun Prohibi ion Case.
The fight which the "pros" and
'antis" of our neighboring county OF
Williamson recently had on their
hands Is familiar to the readers OF
The STATESMAN, a. full account OF
the case and the various steps taken
in the legal battle which has been
waged, have been given in these col.
umns from time to time. Another
step was taken yesterday in the su.
preme court by an opinion which was
handed down, written by Associate
Justice Brown and which bring the
questions involved that much nearer
final settlement.
The original trouble, 1t will be re-.
membered, grew ont of an order mad g
by the commissioners court of Will
Hanson county ordering local option
election for the entire county. Prior
to that time, however, three precincts
In the county had adopted local OPP
tion and 1t was still in force. Follow
ing Immediately on the issuance OF
the order by the mmissioners court
the "antis" raised q howl protesting
against the voters In the dry districts
from taking part in an election which
would not effect them Counsel was
employed and an application was
made to Judge Norris of the
Twenty.sixth judicial district
fora writ of injunction. The case was
tried at length in this city, resulting
in Judge Morris handing down very
full and exhaustive opinion, entering
rule requiring the members of the
commissioners court to appear at the
next term of court and show cause
why writ of prohibition should not
issue against them, prohibiting them
from making any decision ofthe result
of the election go ordered.
Counsel for the "prcs 8" then took the
matter before the supreme court, seek.
ing to have Judge Morris judgment
set aside, contending that he had de.
cided the case contrary to the law.
The opinion by~Judge Brown holds
that the original Jurisdiction Of this
court depends upon the provision
iOuuu III t-GOs - VI 1Abs - vi VIZ COubll-
tuition as amended In 1901, providing
that "the legislature may confer orig.
inal Jurisdiction on the supreme court
to issue writs OF quo warranto and
mandamus In such cases as may be
specified, except as against the gov
ernor OF the state" and the act of the
Twenty.second Legislature putting
this into effect.
He holds that II the court should be
Of o different opinion as 10 the law
upon which Judge Morris acted and
should issue mandamus command
ing him 10 vacate his order, he would
be enterip & the judgment OF that court
and not his own; that the
court has not the power
to substitute its own judgment for that
of district judge in case pending in
his own court.
The same doctrine ID well expressed
In the American and Encyclopedias Of
Law, volume IA, page ITO, In language
as follows: "Mandamus will not be to
corret the errors of inferior tribunals
by annulling what they have done
enormously"
The fact that the suit is still pend
ing, and the aggrieved parties may
appeal Is also suggested as an objec
tion against granting the mandamus.
"The writ OF mandamus is never
granted when the grievance COM
planned of may be corrected on ap.
peal" High Elk. Leg. Rem, sec. 1888;
State vs. McGowcn, SO Mo-, 1856.
The petition for mandamus was
therefore dismissed.