The Daily Texarkanian., 1896-03-12
TEyHS' WHISKY LAW.
To THE TEXARKANIAN:

' readers, may nave thOIt COIIeCl
knowledge of the status of the SUBJ
division farce, that was given in
your Sundays issue, l respectfully
ask space for this article.
The governing prohibition law of
Texas, was passed in 1893 The first
section reads - sit shall be the duty
of the Commissioners court to order
an election whenever petitioned to
do so by as many as 25G voters in
county, or 80 voters in any justice
precinct, or subdivision of such
county city or town" BY this
section the law arbitrarily makes
the Commissioners court order
the election when petitioned. Fol
lowing this, however, are two sec
tions qualifying the above provision,
providing a limitation as follows:
First, "no election shall be held
within the same prescribed limits in
less than two years after an election
has been held therein" Second,
''but when prohibition has been
carried at an election for the entire
, county, no election on the question
of prohibition shall hereafter be
ordered in any justice precinct,
town or city of said county, until
after prohibition has Eeen defeated
at subsequent election for the
entire county. No where in the en-
tire law, Is the Commissioners court,
relieved of the duty, imposed upon
it by the first section, OF ordering
an election for sub division when
petitioned to do so. Now then, il
the law compeIs the Commissioners
court to order the election, and
there is no provision of law against
it, then the sub division election is
certainly lawful. In the Burnett
county, case an election was held
for a justice precinct resulting
against prohibition. Within two
years a sub division was carved out
in that precinct and an election
held therein resulting in the adop-
tlon of prohibition Now there is no
express provision of law permitting
the holding of an election anywhere
within a justice precinct within two
wears after an election has been
held for the whole precinct, al
though it results against prohibi-
ton The court of Criminal APP
peals in passing upon this case say:
"Appellant contends that the sub
division election is void under the
law, which provide" that no cleo
ton shall be held within the
same prescribed limits in less than
two years after the election under
this title has been held therein. "
This article does not support the
contention OF the relator, The last
election was not within the same
prescribed limits, all of the same
territory was not covered. The law
does not prohibit the holding OF an
election in the same precinct for a
town, city or sub division thereof
within less than two years. y
Within the same prescribed limits
"means where the precise territory
is to be effected and has no re-
ference to carving below the extent
of such territory. The last act gives
TO the Commissioners court, the
right to carve out just such terri
tory as they deem proper. 1t may
be taken from two or more adjacent
precincts When carved it is treat
ed as a separate and district sub
division of the county tor local
option purposes. 1t will be obser-
we'd that carved-out subdivision
of conuty has equal standing with
Justice precinct, city or town, be-
fore the law, and in 1891 the con
stitution of the state was amended
for the sole purpose of giving such
subdivisions equal rights with
Justice precincts, cities, and towns.
1t iS clear that it is the law, that
when prohibition carries in a county
no election can hereafter be held in
a Justice precinct, city, or town, in
said county until set aside by the
whole county. And it is equally
clear that the leaving out of Sub
division" has the same effect upon
territory embraced within the limits
of the county, that the leaving out
of "justice precinct would have;
and If the law had read that when
prohibition is carried for the whole
county no election shall thereafter
be held in any city or town of said
county until prohibition is repealed
by the whole county, do
not think, that it would be
contended from any quarter that
an election could not be held for a