The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-10-03

every act that they may think inopera-
| tive by the effect of subsequent act
| by implication.
| Common sense would dictate in such
q case if the legislature wanted to leave
| the first law in force they would simply
repeal the last law that might be held to
make the first law imperative by lmpll-
cation and leave the first law in force.
| If the first law was not repealed by i'm
plication by the last law ipso facto, 1t
| could not be repealed by the decision of
court that, was liable to be reversed
the next month or the next year. When
you probe down to the starting point
of this elaborate and lengthy opinion
of Judge Hurts you will find it to rest
for a foundation on the assumption
that one of court of last resort, de-
claring an act of the legislature repealed
by implication by the terms of a subse-
quent act destroys it as effectually as
though it was expressly repealed by the
legislature, the same as if the first law
had never been passed; the same as
though some unknown power had been
able to erase it from the statute book
so that no officer and no court could
again see it to act on it. If that is not
correct the opinion is Il fallacy. The
State constitution, article l, section IS:
"No power of suspending laws in this
State shall be exercised except by the leg
islature."
1t Is truism in Jurisprudence that
no court can suspend or abrogate law
of the State upon any ground what
ever, except only as to it's effect in the
| one case that is being adjudicated; and
| a decision that holds law imperative
| in that one case does not imperatlVely
| bind the same court or any other court
holding differently, nor does it bind au.
| thoritatively any other department OF
the government in re 2rence to any other
| case than that particular one decldet,
even though another case should arise
similar in facts to the one decided;
| Much less so the opinion and action OF
| a single Judge in a summary proceeding
| of heabeas corpus. If, as 1t is assumed,
| that the decision of court OF last re-
sort declares a law in the statute book
| to be unconstitutional or repealed by I'M
plication, and by that decision the law
| is absolutely annulled, and is hencetorth
nonresident the same as If it had never
| been enacted and put in the statute DOCK
| no court could ever reverse that decision,
! because there would be no law IN exist
| ence upon which the subsequent court
| could act in reversing it. A reversal OF
such decision pesupposes the continued
| existence of the law that was held Prev
ously to have been imperative by the
| first decision. In no other way coulu
| such n decision be reversed. Respect
| fully your obedient servant,
ISigneH o. NJ. ROBERTS.
p. 81 ought to have added that l
| think both of these laws stood on the stat,
| ute book unrepealed (by the decision Oh
| the court in one case that might nave
been reversed, when the codes were pass,
ed in the Twenty-fourth legislature, ana
| that under the law directing as to Whcn
the different acts in the codes should he
regarded as taking effect, the times OF
| these two acts taking effect should be the
dates of their passage originally, and not
| in reference to the times that these codes
PASSED by the Twenty-fourth legislature
| took effect; and that therefore the penal
law was a later enactment than the taN
law, and should be enforced. .. Nj. IL.
San Antonio, Tex, Sept. 81, 1885.
Hon. G.. A. Culberson, Governor, Austin
| Texas
| NV Dear Sir-It was with extreme
pleasure that | read in the morning paper
| that YOU had filed your answer to the de
fiance of the New York toughs who were
| threatening to invade the State of Texas
| You have shown the people that you are
governor in fact as well as i'll name, ano
congratulate you most sincerely both as
n friend and as an official, on the entirely
satisfactory manner in which you have
met this outrage. Sincerely yours,
(SigneO JAMES L. SLAYDEN.