The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-09-28
THAT PRIZE FIGHT FEE.
Assistant Attorney General Trice
Explains the Natter.
THE LEGISLATION WAS VALID
Attorney Generals once Requested A.
sistaucc TO Battie with tho Counsel
Employed by Stuart's Crowd.

In the course OF speech delivered III
| Dallas county few days ago. Assistant
| Attorney General Mann Trice referred 10
and disposed of the much talked about
| prize fight case fee, as follows:
I'm reference to the prize fight and fec,
| 1t will be remembered that up to the me
| that the governor issued his proclamation
| declaring that he would stop the fight. no
| money mad been invested or expended by
the projectors of the fight. save and ex
| ccpt what cost Dan Stuart and the dis
| tinguished eX-leutenant governor now
| the popuist nominee for congress in this
| district spent in New York while arrang-
| ing the prcliminaries for the proposed con
| Test. As soon as the terms and date of
the prize fight were made public the gov
| ernor issued his proclamation warning all
| parlcs mat, to the extent Of his cXccu-
| I'VE authority. he would prevent the great
| physical culture contest occurring on
IeNas soil. Notwlthstan: this procla-
NATION, the managers for the contest pro
| Neeued 10 announce through the press all
over me world that there was no way to
stop he iight unless the legislature should
ue cdled together In extra session that
| the state was bankrupt ana without
money with which to pay the expense OF
| could be taken that would prevent the
| ilSnt; At'er the governor had called the
| leslS.a1ure IN extra session these distin-
C
| culture further declared that The legsa
| tllrc could not pass valid law that Guild
2uilleGt or PROHIBIT the proposed irize hight.
| Mhle the bill was pending hefore the leg
lslature counsel for the prize fighters an
| nounced that their clients had made large
expenditures OF money in adver islng tie
ilght, and arranging the 'tahernacle
| wherein they could worship tnc,r dolls of
| physical culture, that the ION trlet and
| expenditure of money was made aud ci.-
tered into on the theory tnat there was
no law in This State prohibiting prize
| iiShtlhS at the iimei hence they contended
| that the pending bill (as II vas flaaly
| passed. was uuconst tu,.oral ard void
| first, because violntive of the obligation Of
contracts second because 'folative OF
| Texas, etc. Y was then openly announced
| by many followers and advocates OF the
night that the bill would he nulliGed i'y
being especially referred TO as the tri-
BURIAL which they expected would sustain
| Their position. The attorney general, after
an exhaustive consideration and ,rVes, ign-
| ton Of the matter advised tne governor,
IN substance, that tho pol,'e power Of the
by CONTRACT or bartered awdv nor ,ou.d
any individual estop I from q ic!Sinc
such rower and that H.. as claimed. the
contracts were made ana money o>l ..no-
ed hy the prize fight pcople. hey acted at
their peril az the STATE reserved. unim-
paired. its power to legts!ate OH the ques-
ton. Therefore. in his opinion. the legs
lat on was valid; but .nasmueh d threat
had been openly made 20 disregard the
! outcome The governor, a. web % the
attorney general and other lo"ple. apprc-
hended that efforts would be made to re-
sort 20 the courts TO nulify Or suspend the
legislation until the scheme Of the prize
fighters could be contaminated. Y was
;hen srSseated to the royera9r hat a
SIS, the attorney general Ia ~hcn cont.n-
gency In this view he governor con-
s sancas w Maa lis G Gsy "P he sT nSn
the attorney general as well a5 HE p-n-
pie of Texas. by employing any ORDINARY
scrub lawyer that might tomc a!ons. a,
fee man testify inadequte to command
the services Of counsel competent to ccm,,
bat with The array of legal talent retained
fps he did employed n compe 'elt aid re-
liable firm in whose ability and integrity
ne people ana me courts ma CO ~ &c o
the Dallas News, Mudsiler Gibbs and the
| entire prize fight contingent to pursue
| the latter course; but they. say he case
was only an ordinary .misdemna1or, and
| the fec paid was eNorhitant, Wen, lei Us
see about that. In the ilrst mace. arpll,,
| two different counties to me romn'rc'tcr
| to furnish them with blank .icea>e re-
| ceinta for rr'zc fight.
m. comptroller refused 10 issue the
blanks for such purpose on tho ground
~. pr,ze lish,ng w Va mane INA, renal
70 . he held no license could lie Issued;
| rhereupon the cole tors of Hays an
Williamson counties filed mandamus rro-
| ceedingS against the comptroller before
he SUPREME cour. OF Tex 3 king that
he he comp He'd TO furnish county col
all occupations ,aXed by law. and no col
| ler'or Is authorized to issue a licensa OK
cept upon he blanks furnished by the
comptroller tsco Revised STA utes Of lSeH
articles @5S-555 on Page lo22) If then
there was no valid penal law against
rrlze ilghtng: It wss t., the ~, PLAIN ar'y OF
the act OF ls.o devised Statutes of 1875
page 1910 20 issue a license TO any ncrson
he This FTl S cend mot e dis
| charged unless the comp roller furnis he
The blank, recent. just referrcd %
rheee nandamus suits were filed IN the
supreme court hefo.e the enactment of
| tho anu-prize fight law by the special
session of the legislature, hut wore not
| tried or decided until after the passage OF
| the law. The State resisted the issuance
of The license blanks or receipts on the
STATE snspcnd,e7 and repealed no licenee
| law II Is, therefore, apparent tina; the
const!,Tlonality of the penal statute
ton in the trial Of these cases. ine cases
we're argued on he rirt If me State by
the attorney general and Messrs. liogg Il
governor 10 assist him. The result Is
Wei We, known VIII. The supreme court held
demeanor Inhibition or the license act
| controlled. that the law enacted Ivy the
called session, making prize fighting. a
and repealed all other laws on The sub
iect. Therefore the applications for
Means vs.. Finley, 80 S W. Rep. 52i)
The. decision, much to the gra'lnclion
o. ne governor es well "a all Persons on
posed to the. flstic carnival, efrectually
disposed of the clustering contention of
the prize lighters; II was ,he decision
/ by me higheSi tribunal In the 5 ate, af-
fordinG sufficient authority TO conc lar
the judicial skepticism" of any tribunal
to which the faded remnants OF eNpirin g
barharlsm' might have resortcd. While
| 90 nos see how any court. State or Fed
eral' could have sustained their conlen-
non, yet instances are frequent. and
some recent, whore court, have made
rulings nat surprised, yea. .noc lsei h.
sensihilities OF thinking people. ie
| Their ma constituted the law until re-
Neraed. or lesisla;cd away from. Lni /, is
yet within your memory when n Federal
Iuuse IN FLORIDA uSurped The functions OF
So NJ. nutnori " dsarmei HE uoyerno-
and local authorities, and turned one OF
| the fair Giles of the Southland over TO
me unbrldled riot and revelry ~ all tho
| loNths OF thUgdon. thus Attending thr "a