The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-05-30
OPINIONS.

'I1H 10 Oluereu 10 issue.
OPINIONS.
Following are the opinions delivered by
the supreme court yesterday:
State of Texas ex rel. Chas Guercrin
VS.. f. w. McAlister; certified question.
IN case from Bexar county, Fourth dis
trict.
The charter of the city of San Antonio
provides for the election of city alder
man by wards; and that only the voters
OF each particular ward shall have the
right to vote for the aldermen from
that ward.
Question-Is this provision of the
city charter in conflict with article sec
ton 8 OF the State constitution, which
provides that AL qualified electors of
the State, as herein described, II
shall have the right to vote for mayor
and all other elective officers; but, in all
elections to determine the expenditure of
money or assumption of debt, only those
shall be qualified to vote, who paw taxes
on property in said city," etc?
~ At the time of the adoption of the
constitution, the law provided for the cleo
ton of aldermen by the electors of each
ward. laws 1875, p. 113) This sec
ton of the law was retained in the Re
vised Statutes, which were adopted after
the adoption of the constitution. This
shows that the Legislature did not con-
strue the provisions as being in conflict
with the constitution.
(2) At the time the constitution was
adopted, there were many cities and towns
in the State organization under the law
of 1870, and under special acts, in which
the same provision for electing aldermen
was embraced In fact is was and is
the well known and common method. The
purpose to destroy a system of municipal
government, so common i'll the State, will
not be attributed to the convention which
framed the constitution, unless the Ian
guage is so certain as to compel such con-
structiOn.
60 In 1876 the legislature amended
the charter of the city of Houston. In
this amendment the sections of the con-
sttution under consideration was sub
stantially copied. In subsequent sec
ton of the same amendment it is provided:
"That each ward in the city shall be rep
resented in the city council by two alder
men elected by the voters of each ward,
who shall vote only in their respective
wards" (Spec. laws, 1876. p. "a, sec. 81
A similar provision is found in the charters
of the cities of Galveston and Dallas.
construction of the constitution, by the leg
islature, was against the claim of the
appellee in this case.
az The language of the constitution
indicates the intention of the convention,
to divide the voters into two classes, and
to secure the rights of each upon the two
principal subjects of elections. The in
tention was not to provide that elective
officers shall be selected by the voters
of +Io ontiro citv n was SimnlV to o.
cure to the voters of each city the right
to cast their ballots for all officers to be
elected for the particular subdivision of
the city for which such officers are chosen.
We answer, therefore, that the sec
ton of the charter referred to in the ques-
ton is not unconstitutional, and that the
legislature has the power to make the
aldermen of town or city elective by
wards. in whole or in part, or by the city
at large. Opinion by Brown, j.
Newhurne VS.. Durham ct al, certified
questions in a case; from Anderson
county, First district.
Question l. Can the marshal of town.
incorporated under the general law, eX-
ercise the powers confined in Art ~,
C. C. P, beyond the limits of his town,
save when the arrest is made for fel-
ony committed within the corporate
limits of the town?
~ Independent of the statute, the au-
thority of the marshal would not extend
beyond the city limits. (3 Harr.. 41G)
(2) The question then is have the statu-
tes of this State extended the authority
of the marshal, in the matter Of making
arrests beyond the city limits?
Art. A. c. C. p. and Art. 1853. r. s..
confer upon the marshal power to arrest
in certain cases without warrant, but
they do not expressly authorize such ar
rests beyond the city limits. The impli-
cation to that effect is, however, strong,
for the marshal is placed in the same
class with other officers whose jurisdic-
ton in making such arrest undoubtedly
extends to the limits of the county.
But, however this may be, we are of
the opinion that Article 363, Revised
Statutes cOnfers upon the marshal the
power to make such arrests outside the
city limits. In express terms, this article
confers upon him the "power, authority
and jurisdiction" of a sheriff. The pow
ers of the marshal, since they are
measured by those of the sheriff, must be
co-extensive with the limits of the county.
We answer the first question in the
affirmative, which renders it unnecessary
to answer the other questions certified
Opinion by Denman, J.
Houston and Texas Central Railroad
company VS.. Crawford, certified ques-
tions in a case; from Harris county, First
district.
The Houston and Texas Central rail-
way was placed in the hands of Charles
Dillingham;. receiver, prior to 1888, by