Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-07-07
The Law is Sufficient to
Prevent 1t.
is OPERATIVE AND VALID.
Only the Declaration That Prize Fight
ingls Felony" May be Treated
as "surplusage."
The Gazette Bureau.)
Avenue Hotel,



AUSTIN. TEN, July g.
AS stated In dispatch in the Ga
zette, the question In the Corbett-Fitz-
simmons matter now as to whether
y Is an offensc against the laws OF
Texas Is the construction OF section l
of the act OF 1891, which prohibits such
exhibitions. have given this subject
much investigation this week and dis
cussed II at length with leading at
torreys here. on this proposition 1t
occurs to me that this section OF the
law Is sufficient, Notwithstanding the
against II. II is clear to my mind
that this law IL operative and valid.
Coneedc that section l is duplicltous
and ambiguous, as has been con-
tended, such duplicity and ambiguity
comes from the use OF the words shall
be deembed guilty OF a felony" have
been shown a work ON statutory con-
atructlon which. II appears TO me.
shows clearly that these words referred
to seem to be subject to elimination
from the statute, under proper and
wen known statutory construction. L
don't see how these words can be held
otherwise than mere surplusage. II Ia
the opinion OF leading attorneys that
they can be left out without doing any
violence to the text. l havo read ono
opinion on the act and this attorney
thinks II imperative and void because
the offense Is declared to be felony
and punished as misdeneanor, That
the act may be fully understood, I
herewith reproduce II in full:
ANY person who shall voluntarily
engage In n pugilistic encounter be-
tween man and man, or fight between
man and bull, or between man and
other animal, for money or other thing
of value, or upon tho result OF which
any money or anything OF value IN bet
or wngered, or to see which any ad-
mission fee IL charged, either directly
or indirectly. shall be deemed guilty
OF n felony and upon conviction shall
be punished by a fine OF not less than
$500 or more than $1,000 and by imprlson-
nent In the county jail not less than
sixty days nor more than one year.
| art 1OO6.)
"Second--By the term 'pugilistic en-
counter as used In this law Is meant
any voluntary fight or personal en-
| counter by blows by means OF the
fists, whether with or without gloves.
between two or more men for money.
| prize of any character, or anything or
value. or upon the result OF which my
money or other thing OF value 10 bet
or wagered.
"Thlrd--Any person who shall act
as second, stakeholder. counselor or
adviser or who shall render aid OF any
| such character for or to the principals
shall be doomed u principal In the Of
Tense and shall he punished in article
1906 OF this chapteretnrAO.
"Fourth-All laws and parts OF laws
In conflict with the provisions OF this
| law are hereby repealed; provided, that
no conviction or acquittal under the
provisions OF this law be 80 construed
as to prohibit u prosecution or con-
victlon OF such person for the violation
OF any other provision of the penal
| code"
! heard this opinion on the law the
other day from a prominent attorney
| and II convinced me thoroughly thet
the oct is constitutional and will stand
the test OF the courts. He held that
the offcnse IL clearly defined and that
the punishment annexed thereto Ii
also made certain. His idea was that
the declaration that II IL a felony can
| be treated as surplusnge and the bal
ance can be enforced. He contends
that by act OF the legislature and not
| by constitutional enactment the test
| or a felony Is made to depend upon
| whether the punishment is death or
confinement in the penitentiary; tho
/ latter may be the alternative. He said
that there was no inhibition upon tho
| legislature forblddlng II from making
an offense felony without requiring
| death or imprisonment In the peniten-
tiary as the penalty. He asked the
question. ''Why cannot the legislature
| declare the offense felony without
| In the penltentiary. and that why
can't the legislature which passed thia
| law repeal the test made by another
legislatureT
lie holds that the legislature can
| make this offense u felony with all the
consequences except the punishment Of
| death or imprisonment in the peniten-
| tiary. His idea is that II the constitu-
ton had spoken prescribing the test
| OF felony the legislature could make no
| other test. But. no maintained, con-
cede that the constitution had pre-
scribed the test death or imprison-
| mtnO the question still remains. cAn't
il be treated as surplusage, the offcnss
being already defined and a punish-
| ment made certain. To my mind this
| IL proper construction OF the act.
and the managers OF the Corbett-fitz-
simmons mill will have to override and
| violate the law before they can meet
| they have done 30 wounder what riEht
| these parties violating the law have
to complain. Those In the city TAT tho
head OF the Trinity navigation who
are opposing this exhibition of the
manly art" should familiarize the
| Code OF Criminal Procedure. II mis-
| take not II reads: That municipal nti-
| thorities OF towns and cities
| may authorize arrests without warrant
| where persons threaten or arc
| about to commit some ofrense against
| the laws. And the decisions seem to
hold that this Authority need not be
| given; the arrests can be made by
! city officers without II. The question
| is, WIN they do II? As a rule. these
officers are friendly to such exhibitions.
| and as am informed this one TO be"
has support from leading business and
social leaders OF Dallas. But future
developments on this question may
before this great fight Is advertised 70
be pulled on. and something may hap
- A. @. D.