Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-09-17

PRIZE FIGHTERS UP.
CRIME Argues for the state ana ". n
Eiiison and Judge cra,sfasd
for the PugiiIsts.

Dallas. Tex, Sept. 6.-(special)-
AT o'clock this morning the criminal
court room was Jammed with specta-
tors. the business men OF Dallas and
lawyers predominating. The habeas
corpus trial OF Jess Clark, charged with
prize fighting. was set for that hour.
Chief Justice ]. NJ. Hurt, who granted
the writ. was present. but neither
Judges Davidson or Henderson put In
an appearance, although the latter
was in the city. The applicant was
represented by the Crawfords. w. p.
Ellison, j. r. ICELAND, w. j. j. Smith
and X. Il. Cowart. Attorney General
NJ. NJ. Crane appeared for the state.
Mann Trice and County Attorney John
Il. Gillespie We're present. but Crane
did the work. 1t was agreed that there
had been prize hight; that the arrest
OF the parties was regular. and that
before the fight u tender had been
made of $500 for license and refused
by the collector. II was further ag reed
that Jess Clark. the applicant, contend
ed that he was Illegally deprived OF his
liberty without warrant of law Cor the
reason that no law prohibiting pugillsm
prevailed in Texas. William p. Ellison
opened, the applicant having been
given the opening and the closing ar
guments. II was agreed that the main
point ut issue was whether the law of
1871, preventing pugilism, Is in exist
ence. The attorney general afiirms
that II Is operative. and the opposing
counsel that 1t has been dead letter
since September 1. Ellison made a
two hours argument, which was pro-
nounced by dislnterested lawyers PIES
ent as covering all the ground. Ellison
said the license law was enacted In
1889 and the anti-pugilism Inv In 1891.
The latter therefore repealed the for
mer, but the legislature OF 1895 eGopted
a civil and penal code. The oc ,upation
tax law was embodied In the former
and the felony statute IA The latter.
The effect Of this was 10 se-enaot both
laws, but the penal code took effect
August and the civil code Gaptember
/. The last to go into effect was de-
clared to be the intent OF the legisla-
ture, hence the anti-pugilistic law of
1891 had been repealed. Mr.. Ellison
presented many decisions and authori-
ties to sustain his argument. One
point he made was that the .tate or-
cupatlon tax law was not u clr-lnuauce
of the old law hy the revision COM
mission appointed by the legislature.
II must be tested as a new law, be-
cause in the Sullivan case the court OF
criminal appeals had declared the old
law of 1883 TO have been repealed by
the law Of 1891.
"There are two irreconcllable statutes"
said he, and the one going into effect
last renders void or repeats by implica-
tion the other. All the authorities con-
cur In this Interpretation and the con-
struotlon OF statutes which conflict and
are repugnant.
At the close OF Mr.. Ellison's argu-
ment a recess was ordered for dinner,
and when court re-assembled the rush
OF spectators made II very disagreeable
about the courthouse.
Attorney-General Crane proceeded
with his argument. saying that he
would connne himself to the single
point at issue. namely. whether or not
the occupation tax law by reason OF
the civil code going into effect later
than the penal code, containing the
statute declaring prize lighting fell
ony is invalid.
He argued that a law last passed re-
peals former law, and the fact that
the law first enacted may for any rea-
son be the last to go into effect has
nothing TO do with this well recog-
MED principle OF Interpretation.
In support of this position Mr.. Crane
quoted cases from reports OF Pennsyl-
vania and Iowa. He said that he knew
OF but one decision In support OF the
contrary contention.
The attorney-general said 1t was con-
ceded by Ellison that the penal code
passed the legislature before the civil
code. but 1t was contended by Ellison
that the latter went into effect last.
Crane asserted that the governor Is no
part OF the Legislature. and the bill
that passes the legislature first is ~
one that controls, and not the one thai
receives the governors signature laat
or that goes into effect last.
The rules that apply TO a code OF
laws, Crane said. are not the same
with the rules that apply TO a single
statute. There IL nothing creative In
codlfylng statutes. II Is merely mat
ter of arranging and printing previous
iy existing laws.
And the question arose in Cranes
mind whether the occupation tax law
ought to have been inserted In the
civil code. as that law as concededly
replaced by the felony law OF 1881.
Referring to the powers Of the cod
filters he said that among other dlrec-
tons given them they were instructed
to embody In u civil and a penal code
all laws that had not been repealed or
amended.
Judge Hurt wished to know OF the
speakers whether IL the codiners had
made radical alterations In some OF the
laws and then submitted the code 10
the legislature and the legislature had
adopted their work. would that or
would not II make the contents OF the
code the laws OF the land.
Crane answered he believed the adop-
tion OF such code by the legislature
would not give such statutes the force
OF law.
The encouragement emphatically
stated that the revision commission
had no power TO place new articles
In the penal code or the civil code,
-. a IL ~. t.,,r,a, "a ffnrt ~ ft,.. Itoanea
lax law In the civil code meant any
thing Il was that II was merely q com
tipdntlon OF the act OF 1883 after II
had been repealed BY the legislature
or 1891. and ngt.in after It had been de-
cIare1 imperative by the court OF
criminal appeals. He cited a number
Of decisions in support OF his posi-
Al o'clock Judge NJ. L.. Crawford
nm ne clnsInr Argument for the