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

On September % the presiding judge of
the court of criminal appeals, in habeas
corpus proceedings, held, in effect, that
the act of 1889, licensing fights between
man and man, as brought forward in the
Revised Civil Statutes, repealed the
criminal statute against such contests
Incorporated in the revised Penal Code.
While it is believed that this decision
of a single judge of a court of three
members is not final except in the case
in which it was rendered it is that of
jurist of distinguished ability and large
experience and may serve to create an
apparent conflict of authority and embar-
rass the execution of the law. 1t is
not certain that decision of the ques-
ton by the court of criminal appeals or
the supreme court will be rendered in
time to meet existing emergencies, and
it was deemed proper that all contro-
versy should be removed by legislation.
Those who believe that prohibitory law
now exists should not hesitate to cure
any possible defect, and those who are of
the contrary opinion should support such
Ia measure upon general considerations
of it's wisdom.
1t is submitted that the situation in
this State demands the immediate enact
ment of statute making prize fighting
whether with or without gloves, and
fights between man and animals, fell
ony, and that it should be operative from
and after its passage Extended adj
vocacy of law prohibiting such exhi-
billions is unnecessary in view of your
recent unanimous action on the subject.
The concensu of modern opinoin
is that prize fighting is brutal and
degrading. 1t is denounced by the leg
islation of every State in the Union.
In Alabama, California, Colorado, Con-
necticut, Florida, Indiana Illinois, Iowa.
Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mis-
sissippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada. North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont.
Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin
it is felony. Besides the inherent
justice of such penalty it Will in itself
be the most effective remedy for the en-
forcement of the law and will put an
end to local winks at it's violation, where
it is only a misdemeanor and arrests
and imposition of fines after the offense
has been committed. 1t may be that
no serious opposition will be urged to
the passage of such a law, but that re-
sistance will be offered to its becom-
ing Immediately operative in order to
afford protection to prize fights adver-
tised to take place during the present
month, the management of which, it is
asserted has invested large sums of
money and incurred heavy obligations
by contracts. The suggestion upon
which this opposition to an emergency
clause in the law is based is not I'M
worthy the defiance of public propriety
and good order which is characteristic
of such exhibitions. 1t rests upon the
audacious proposition that a free people
can forfeit or have bargained away the
right to preserve the public peace, the
public morals or the public safety. The
supreme court of the United States in
Stone VS.. Mississippi 100 U. s.. SIG,
said: 'No legislature can bargain away
the public health or the public morals.
| The people themselves cannot do it,
much less their servants. Government
| is organized with view to their preser-
| walton and cannot divest itself of the
power to provide for them" Nor does
| the fact that contracts have been en-
tered into, if true, abridge the rights
! of the State to prohibit this exhibition.
The same court in New Orleans Gas
| Company VS.. Louisiana Light Company
rs U. s., 6T2. said: ''The .constitu-
| tional prohibition upon State laws I'M
pairing the obligation of CONTRACTS does
not restrict the power of the State 70
rrotect the public health, the public NOR