The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-02-28
Epremc Courts Decision in
the Stewart Case.
ecH DECISION AGAIN UPHELD.
Eher Court Is Held to Be in
the Wrong.
COURTS ARE WIPED OUT.
III. Decision. which Goes Fur
ther Than Lcnch. Knox or
Fneg Decisions.
! COURTS ARE WIPED OUT

.,swer therein CONFIRMED to the SUI
1 eourt,s decision in the case OF Harri
= NJ vs. Stewart.
AZ case OF Julia A.. Coombs alias Mar,
u the court laid down the following
seitiops:
ma legislature can not confer juris.
!, a mon city courts TO try violations o.
laws, ana can not grant municipal
aatIons authority to suspend Statt
n would follow that city councils can
- ordinances covering the same acts
are made criminal offenses against
S,te tSee Elk parte Fagg, deciued al
N terni.1 Tine legislature can not dc
-ctly what IL can not do directly. For
Sey can authorize the city council IL
an ordinance suspending within Its
rate jurisdiction one State law, it
"A follow It's power would be conferred
Ems suspend all such laws. and If the
klsture can confer jurisdiction ,ipon the
murt to try one violation of the penal
either to the exclusion of State courts,
aacurrentiy with such courts, then 1t
"a follow this could be done with respect
tyiolations of State laws. The corpora
Dud US well pass an ordinance sus-
tng the State law in regard TO murder.
nn. arson, rape or robbery. as ii could
reference TO carrying arms. prohibit
hNdy houses, or any other misdemean-
there is no constitutional inhibition APP
II 10 one chat does not with equal GER
III anply To all Of said laws. Ii the cor
stion courts form a part OF The judicial
ofthis state" under article 5, section
The amended constitution of 1891, the
la;urp would be authorized to confer
Sme jurisdiction upon said corporation
It's as the constitution cunitars upon dis
i courts, county courts or justices Of the
|o courts
.ov. 1t may be asked, what was the in
lion. object and purpose of the people
this State In formulating the amended
xiIutioR Of 1871 In Harris county VS..
bart Judge Brown, speaking for the
h and article b. section 1. Of said
hnution OF 1891. says: The language.
such other courts as NAV be estab
ID BY law, was nuliified by the de-
ms of the supreme court in the cases
kioned. The courts and lawyers We're
instant trouble as 10 the jurisdiction OF
~, which greatly embarrassed the adj
tFratioii of justice. In fact. there We're
u subjects of which no court had 1uris-
hon.
ne do not so understand the OBJ
! Of bto amendment to section ] of ar
f5 Of the constitution. Under said ste
jurisdiction was not conferred uron
district and other courts. ii simply
pnerated courts. and does not attempt
|nnfer jurisdiction upon them. Section
fNrribes the jurisdiction OF the court of
elnal appeals and section that of
courts Of civil appeals. So section | Of
fsrslcle, then. does not undertake to con-
jurisdiction. If we understand the OBJ
Eand purpose of said amendments, they
70 some extent at variance With the
Fls expressed in Harris county VS.. stew
supra. Section 5 of said amended ar
Y enlarges the jurisdiction of the dis
4 court in regard TO certain matters,
'Feln the supreme court bad held. under
constitution OF 1876. that district courts
! no jurisdiction, particularly in regard
oa'ests for Office and contests over the
eENa OF county seats. In the amended |
|aSlution said court was made one of |
~ jurisdiction without regard to |
Eaaraeter o. the litigation. to avoid the
limitation held TO exist by the SUI
~ court. Therefore the jurisdiction |
~ court had, in these respects, been
wv There were other objects to be at
y. ~ by THIS amendment. IL was said in
~ vs.. Oppenheimer supra: 1.-The main
sse was to remodel our appeal system
: % relieve the dockets of the court Of
~ and the supreme court, and to Sc
Prompt disposition Of cases on ap-
i. incidentally the jurisdiction OF the.
NY 10y court was enlarged, but that of
+, sodhty court was in no respect changed.
~ ployision which authorized the leg
W 70 take away the Jurisdiction or
NJ. oour,s. as we have seen, was lett
s"sd N any manner by the amend
!. y Is evident that II was not the
ias . change the former policy in this
,li'a.' ana it WIS NOT intended to abol-
~ previous legislation which had been
n r aaaer the authority of that pro-
,fsfa, 'ue which would have subserved
rsat in siu, but which would have led
n eon,ussohvenlence as well as/ unnec-
,,ses usioh and delay in many pend
tbe ~ may be added that II was
rs ,ha pslp9se o. said amendment to
eos,,. eppeiate jurisdiction OF the su.
III a anu 10 create courts of civil
etosorsa ppsIale tribunals In civil cases.
,unrs,a we appellate Jurisdiction OF
, Il n;,', court extended to district
IN cases; but since the amend ,
oni,, appellate jurisdiction OF that
NJ sA,ehds Ivy writ OF error to the /,
/ Il, SMn appeals, and thus the ap. :
Il lN NJ al the supreme court Is
~, one would contend for a mo-
Il c,.,,a IN appeal would lie from the !,
,esen, 70 the supreme court under :
Ihat constitution. This renders GER /.
sp4a,aS lormer appellate jurisdiction >
hi my. py the amended constitution. !.
,th .hpose OF the amendment was :
4 ~ MY MY court OF appeals. 1t would
aeon ms'htained now that such court :
sn ~ 81 appeals" has an existence Z
ltiye ,uat one could be created by =
NJ ,tnaetment. That court was re- !,
re eoru. msnded constitution of 1891. !
~ isse0iaton courts by the consti-
4 1so, SOL another object OF the amend 0
uIns, was 70 create the present court g
eaIs ppeals. with jurisdiction only
men, ~ criminal causes. Before, the 9
in,;,s ,ne court OF appeals had APP y
81 e,sa as well In civil as in y
wo,,,s The legislature now csr- j
rfion not have authority to confer p
D en,a apoh the court of criminal APP 81
n Jg..asn npneals in civil cases. y
ia s county VS.. Stewart. supra. g
81 Il. 70 tnis provision Of article 8. D
IN ~ the Legislature may deem q
rar,za.au prescribe the jurisdiction a
risdie,iesua thereof. aud may conform q
sr.on ~ the district and other q
wi,b 's inereto.' changed the whole y
,,rr r !. rsierence to the mower NJ the =
tb,'' create other courts. and thus y
", AL oo1y e erafer upon them d.
4 w,,hou as il saw proper. cock n
and !, me named constitutional II
psr,. coHfor,n tho Jurisdiction az G.
<FNfilfe Courts ~ o.,nh o,t,.,., ~ -