Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-12-22
A protest From claude.

Editor Gazette.
/ have read with interest the replies
to your questions concerning the crlm-
innl laws and procedure OF Texas ana
l canrot refrain from replying TO some
of those. Honesty OF purpose must
be conceded TO the authors OF these re-
piles, but 'hs very Rbsurdlty OF their
statements serves to show their utter
Ignorance of the subject matter OF
wn!ch they write. and their impotent
TRUSTS nj our higher courts betray an
absence OF this least idea of their funf-
lion, Tho mrs, In the list OF replies
is that of Mr., W. NJ. Pierron OF vide
Awake. He starts 6 It VITA the broad
assertion, "The criminal ststui q OF
Texas need revision" Jhep follows q
reference TO The case OF the S'ats ".
J.. II. williams. appealed from i)allas
county. Now, In every trial court cor
tain rules OF procedure and evidence
must govern. 1t would not be Justice
10 try one with q jury OF twelve men.
another with Ave and another with six,
In order that justice may be done " 10
necessary that every citizen or the
state (being equal under the iaw) DO
allowed the same privileges and subject
TO the same laws. In order thai trials
may be conducted Systematically, I'M
partially and fairly. the rules or laws
governing these trials must be impera-
five. The laws governing these mat
ters in Texas have been evolved from
principles OF fairness 10 every one.
Line upon line and precept upon pre-
cept have been handed down until now
we have the present criminal pro-
ceedurn and laws OF evidence, perfect
as falllble humanity has been able to
make Il. One OF these laws IL, The
proof must correspond with the al'ega-
tion." II Justice be done this rule
must be applied equally 10 every man
accused OF crime. Law Ia law, and
should deal with every man alike. The
court OF appeals does not make law.
Then II the state failed TO prove that
Williams killed the person he was
charged with killing, Is the court OF
appeals 10 hlameR Surely not. They
anplIed the rule Just stated, ana the
rule Is no respector OF persons. This
clearly shows the Ignorance OF The
author of this reply when he assumes
that the court o. appeals made a law
' Next comes Mr.. c. II. Easel OF the
stephenvlils Journal and refers 70 the
rarne case, saying. "The case OF H. ".
Williams Is only one OF the most ma
Grant in long list OF farran, de-
cislons rendered by the court OF ap.
peals." what wonderful assurnneal
mightier than the law Il was created
"a enforce" Here, indeed. Is something
new II has remained for the editor
~ the stephenylile Journal. who Is re-
wiling the court Of appeals because q
ita corrupt use OF power. to Invest u
with still more and greater powers
power il never possessed. that OF en-
forcing law. Nay. truly. No court
can be mightIer than the law which
created II, and the Law created the
eourt Of appeals. The law says the
siIegata and probate must correspond.
Ths court OF appeals must how IN nc
suiesence, and 10 they did IN the case
or L. ". Williams. nut our editor goes
stiiI further and gets more rabid as no
proceeds. and says, Such instances as
this only emphasize me s ,,, W. ne co.
v,,ot tribunal OF the power 10 cheat