Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-01-31


force under which such contests can be
legally tried US provided by the Con-
Htitution, neither this COMMITTEES nor
the house has any power or authority
10 90 behind The retuIns and Inquire
into the legality Of the certificates
which have been granted 70 said con-
nestees. PATTERSON. Chairman.
The minority report maintains that
the house has such power. Here u
the text of Its report, which the attor-
neys for the contestants argued at
even greater length this morning:
Austin. Tex. Jan. 25.-Hon. T, $.
Smith, Speaker OF the House; Your
committee on privileges and elections
have had under consideration the sew
eral confessed election cases referred
TO II by the house tElaller VS.. Dun,
Tompkins VS.. Joseph and Frost VI.
O'NeaD and on objections raised In
llmine have been decided by major
ity OF the committee that the house OF
representatives snd this committee
has no jurisdiction under the COnsutu-
tion and laws OF Texas to try, inNesll-
gate and decide or determine on con-
tested elections for seats In this body,
and a majority report has been made
and will be presented 10 the house
for It's consideration, and, Of COURSE
will, in detail. speak the sentiments
and convictions OF the majority OF the
scented by such majority report
We. the undersigned, a minority OF
your committee. cannot concur IN the
conclusion OF the majority ana beg
leave to submit this minority report
giving herein our reasons for non-eon-
currcnCc;
The provisions of the Constitution OF
1876 on which the majority rely TO
sustain II. IL as follows.
Article 8, section s.-"Enoh house
shall be the Judge OF the qualifications
and election OF Its own members, nut
contested elections shall be decided In
such manner as shall be provided by
law"
il Is in the latter clause OF said sec
ton in Hhlch the difhcuHsy- exists, IN
that Il Is said there is no legislation
on the statute books which points uut
the mode or manner In which the trial
OF the contested election case shall be
conducted We understand also that
the majority relies on the decision In
Odell vs. Wharton. n s. ". Rep, page
1928. It is true that the Odell case uses
the following lElguaget
1.-THE amendment OF Tic Constitution
OF 1891 did not Nitallze and rcuder valid
chapter G, title a. Revised Statues. IL
authorized legislation In the future,
prescribing rulea OF procedure by
which the Jurisdiction might be exer-
cised.
'The act OF March %. 1893. known ms
the local option law which amended
article $3.50. Revised Statutes, referred
TO any valid laws then In force or that
might be thereafter enacted upon the
subject II did not purport TO revise
chapter 6. title "a, and If It had nj
tempted to DO 70 by referring to laws
existing 1t would have been in con-
Met with article ;, section 30, Of the
Constitutlon, and void 70 that extent.
There IL no law in force prescribing
the rules by which a contested election
may bo tried IA the district court.
The proceedings prescribed Tor trying
suits, pleas etc, do not apply thereto
and the district court has no jurisdic'
tion OF this proceeding
But n must be remembered that tho
language SO used was In relation "a
the case. QUESTIONS, etc. before the
court.
tsl. Whether tho district courts OF
the state have the power 10 try con
tested election cases under the present
state OF the lnwi Tie decision was
that such power does not exist The
same decision was made In hN Pnrit
T0wles As Texas. 4i3, hy Chief Jusue,
RObcrts ia Williamson vs.. Lane, o.
Texas. 3S5. by Chief Justice Moore
and I'm 10 Texas, gI3, Eek Parte whit
low. by Associate and afterwards Chile
Justice Stayton.
These cases are cited by Mr., Jusuc
Brown TO support tho text In tho pdei
case, but Mr., Justice Brown used IN
following Language IN making MS de
cision. not intending or applying IN
Language to the suctluua In chapter !
which point out the mode and provid
the manner In which contested election
shnll bo conducted wien seats Ia IA
legislature are involved, I'm an Inter
view with Mr., Justice Brown he EN-
phatleHliy stated, as We are informed
that tho doulaiou Ia tho Odcll case dl
not AFFECT was not Intended 1
affect and IN law could not al
fcct sections 1924. l126, li2G, i7i6, IA
17AS, 1i49 and 1860 OF uuld chapter, o
the provision OF the constitution XIV
Ing the legislature jurisdiction over IN
election nf its members article p, sec
ton 81, for the simple. but all suthcler
reason that those sections and thu
section OF the constitution were not bi
fore the court
SO wu take II that IN considorRtio
of tho questions Involved, the case {
Odell va, Wharton may be laid aside n
throwing no light ana making no clue
dntiou VI the subject matter under dll
oussion.
"A to the difficulty which grows OF
OF the latter clause OF the provision
the constitution before quoted VII
"But contested elections shall he di
provided by law" wo think 10 solved b
reference 10 the laws now I'm eXlstenc
and which have been In existence sui
stantially Ms they now are since 1916.
The constitution Of 1896 had proyl
Ion In eXuot substance and melnin
CseGtionl2 article -, and 80 did the col
stitution OF 1869 (secuon 10, article 9
In 1915 the legislature passed the 10
lowing law 10 carry the constitute
into effect;
uSl ulartloy. page 5000 Article 81
''Be Il further enacted, that any pc
son intending to contest the election
any one holding certificate OF olectio
shall, within ten days after the retuI
day, give him notice thereof in writin
and deliver To him written statemei
OF the grounds ON which he relies
sustain such contest; and the perac
elected as aforesaid. shall, within te
days after receiving such notice, d
liver or cause TO he delivered his rep
to the statement of the confession.
Qg) Article glS BE Il further el
acted, that the notices ana write
state nonts provided for In the foreg
ing section shan be served ON the 81
posiie party Ia person n he can /
found n not, then by leaving the san
al HIS usual place OF abode or bus