The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-12-03

II OF the FINAL title OF the revived statutes
exempted from the repeal cf section ~
that title. all laws then In force organiA-
Ing the several judicial districts and pre-
scriSing the times for holding the district
courts therein. This being true. the COM
mittco conceived that II would not he sa
to attempt an amendment by mere refer
encc to the section, article and title OF the
revised statutes relating to the eleventh
judicial district. especially in view o. the
error In that section which eefArred merely
TO the act fixing the terms Of tho di
court OF the Eleventh judicial district the
oct creating that district is found in an act
TO redisirict the State into judicial dis
tricts, etc, that took encct ScW,mher !
1854. rage IS and an at amcnoitnry
thereof. pass by the Twenty third lc;ls
laturc In 1921, page iot itself recitllS
numerous amendments. TO rcicr IN W
Z, tho act creating said Elevaath judi 'it
district and the various acts amcndatnIy
thereof. would make the title LONG. cor
rlicated and undesirable. Tte~cto'e we
committee concluded TO resort 10 IN indo
pendent and affirmative act. cup cd WIN
repeating clause of all laws IN conn. e.
The next question considered was whetb
or both judicial districts n Harris county
might CONSTITUTE 1nally comrrisr the same
territory. Section : " article II the state
constitution as amended provides that the
Stale "shall he divided into as many ~
dicial districts as may now or hereafter be
provided by law. which may he ilcreas d
nr diminished by law and that TO- each
district judge shall BE- elected by tho
qualified voters thereof c The clear
meaning Of this language is In the opinion
Of tho committee. that the judicial power
OF the district courts shall he distributed
throughout The entire state. by III lorna
ton Of judicial districts therein. II is tire
districts which the legislator may IN
7. III. N,,ts IA
found against more than one judicial dis
trict comprising the same territory, and
such legislation could with no good reason
be held inconsistent with tn dieiion or
distribution of the jud al y owe of dis
trirt courts throughout tho ate. There
fore, in view OF the familiar principe that
the legislature has all such poNer as is not
taken away from II by the constI'ut on. AMI
that no legislative net will be held uncon
s'itutional unless clearly in conflict with
some provision of the constitution. the
committee is OF opinion that 1t is entirely
competent for the legislature 20 create
more than one judicial district to comprise
the same territory. Minor constitutional
objections have been met and answered by
our supreme court in the case OF Lyle vs.
Half. - Tex. lbs. 1872. 1t may be added, In
this connection. that the Twenty fourth
legislature passed an act page lSli Great
ing two judicial districts In BeXnr county
comprising the same territory tp-wit. inc
county Of Beyar, thus evincing that the
legislature and the bar Of San IN oaio en-
iertained the same opinion a. the conclu-
sion reached By your commi tee.
whether I'VE rrorosed act herewith sub
mtted would be regarded as local or
special law within the puryiew Of section
u Of article 2 OF tho constitution, requiring
thirty days notice TO be given OF the SUB
stance Of such contemplated law before the
introduction OF the bill. the committee has
not determined. but in view Of language
used by our supreme court in the case OF
Lytle VS. Half ubi supra the committee
deems it proper, as cautionary measure
at least. that such notice b. published in
newspaper of Harris county. Al least
cuce a week for a period Of thirty days Sc.
fore the introduction OF the bill (Revised
Statutes article $780,
We are authorized to say that the abo'e
report is with the concurrence OF your
chairman. Hon. ". II. Crank, an ex-ohiclo
member Of the committee. and to whom We
are Indebted for valuable suggestions In
the draft of the bill
Presley X Ewing,
Chairman.
Norman G Kittrell.
Franl, s Burke,
w NJ. Ho land