The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-02-07
IS CIVIL OR MILITARY LAW
PARAMOUNT IN TEXAS?

PARAMOUNT IN TEXAS?
august oath, 1893, Private Fulgham
Company d, and a deputy sheriff oil
Reeves county, scouting down the Pecos
river in search of stolen horses, met a
man carrying pistol They attempted to
arrest him. when he resisted and drew
b;s nistol to shoot. Private Fulgham
fred upon him, killing him instantly"
The above is an extract from report
of the work done by the ranger force
published in The Statesman yesterday
copied from the adjutant generals re-
mort to the governor 1t is very unsatls-
factory. The inquiry is natural, after ter
reading this item in the report, whether
military or civil law is dominant in Tex
as. 1t is very evident that this deputy
sheriff and Private Fulgham of the
rangers had no warrant for the arrest oil
this man who was killed by Fulgham'
nor does it appear that this man knew
they were officers. 1t would be interest
ing 10 know whether Private Fulgham
was ever tried by the civil courts Tor
this killing, for it is homicide OF one de-
gree or another. Taking the bare report
given to the adjutant general jury
would in all probability conclude that 1t
was murder in the first degree. 1t is evil
dent that Private Fulgham had no war
rant for the arrest of this wayfarer, and
that the demand for his surrender was
totally unwarranted There is no evidence
that the man so ruthlessly killed was n
malefactor except that in a wild and
dangerous country he carried pistol to
protect himself. 1t is true that carrying
deadly weapon is a violation of the
law. but the execution of the law against
Il should be exercised with prudence.
If the same ranger had met half dozen
armed men in some remote CROSSROADS
grocery the probability is that he would
not have attempted an arrest, but meet
ing this lonely traveller in wild and
dangerous country the attempt to make
an arbitrary arrest without q Warrant
was ofTicious, imprudcnt and violation
of the civil law, for which this ranger
Private Fulgham ought to have been
tried, convicted and punished. He may
have been, for all we know. If he was
not and such things are sanctioned, we
must say that the ranger force of Texas
has outlived in some respects its useful
ness and its members ought to be rele-
gated to private life and the civil law be
given n chance to be executed in the
state.
While Texas is as safe as any other
state as sparscly inhabited, no man
ought to be interfercd with in carrying
weapons for his protection in certain
sparsely inhabited portions of the state,
and none but a reckless prospector would
90 unarmed in these localities, for it is
in some localities absolutely necessary
for the protection of life.
The law against carrying deadly wca-
pons is of doubtful consistency, with the
right of every citizen to
have and carry arms for self defense,
ana 1t Is only TcCOSHlhcu ny SuhSi"NN
as n police regulation for the protection
of the citizens of thickly settled COM
munities, where the officers of the law
afford ample protection to the person and
of every citizen.
The case we have called attention to,
on its face, is fragrant abuse of author
ity by q member of the ranger force OF
the state, and if this is usual thing
not at all out of the way, and n matter
to be reported rs recommending the
ranger force to the consideration of the
legislature for appropriations for its con.
tinued support, it is time some investi-
cations were made as to the propriety of
continuing the force in this state.
If this ranger who killed this appar-
entity innocent traveller without any good
cause has not been tried and convicted
for his illegal act, it is high time that the
legislature of the state should teach the
ranger force the civil law is paramount
to military law in Texas.