The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-08-06

Reporter, itS.
Referring then to the act OF the Twenty
sixth legislature counsel declared II re-
pealed the law giving to the mayor and the
city council the right to remove trustees
! and appoint successors for them. Several
other authorities were cited in this con-
nectlon.
Mr. oliver, after an argument OF some
! length, gave way to his associate, Mr..
I Ross, who consumed the larger portion of
the remainder OF the session with an
/ elaborate argument in support Of the posi-
/ tion assumed by the plaintiffs He gave
several decisions in Kansas, Oregon, New
York and other States, In which States,
he assorted. practically the same condl-
Z tons prevailed as regarded the matter in
hand. The clause in the Texas constitu-
( ton dealing with the matter OF statutory
{ and constitutional officers was not origi-
( nal. bat was probably borrowed from some
of the older States, likely from Mich gan.
Counsel continued by citing the different
acts of the State Legislature regarding
the tenure of office of school officials and
also read from an encyclopedia of law re-
garding the construction OF constitutional
provisions. The legislature, he asserted,
did not understand the trustees TO be con-
stitutional officers, but regarded them as
legislative officers or, rather, administra-
tive agents who were not required TO take
an oath to support the constitution. The
constitution counsel continued, contained
provision authorizing the Legislature to
fix the compensation of all officers not pro-
vded for in the constitution. and as the
trustees were not provided for therein
they were not constitutional officers.
Mr.. Ross also read from Post clipping
the correspondence which passed between
Mayor Brashear and State Superintendent
Kendall. together with the decision of the
latter in the premises. The approval Of
this decision by the state board on Friday
last was also noted The new law, which
/ went into effect on May 30, 1899, was read
! by counsel, who explained its provisions.
II provided, among other things for the
repeal of all laws and all parts of laws in
conflict herewith.
| Mr.. Ross then yielded the floor to Mr..
Sears, who said in effect that he would
not attempt to reply to the various author
tiles cited by the plaintiffs, because he did
not believe they had anything to do with
the case. The Houston board Of trustees
was formed under the city charter. Messrs.
7 Shearn and Cade OF the old board were
appointed two years ago last May, II,
counsel commended, the law of May 80 was
/ constitutional 1t was never intended to
| repeal the provisions In the city charter
| having connection with the matter. The
| forty-second section of the city charter
was read and counsel stated that It was
not conflicting. City charters were grant
ed at each session of the legislature and
form the supreme law of the towns or
! cities for which granted. In many cases,
/ however the charters conflicted with gem
| eral laws passed later, therefore a section
| had been placed in the Houston charter
providing that no part of it be repealed
| by subsequent legislation unless specit-
cally pointed out. The case of Snyder VS..
Compton in S7th Texas was cited
in this connection, as was that OF
Hendricks VS.. Eckford. from Harris coun-
ty, In which, counsel declared, school trus-
tees We're held to be county officers. The
| legislature had not the power IL was as
serted, 10 transgress the constitution and
had no right to extend the term of office
OF any officer. The case of Stubs vs. the
| City of Galveston was cited In connection
| with this assertion. In this case 1t was
| held that the plaintiffs term of office ex-
| pired legally at the end OF two years, not
| withstanding the fact that plaintiff re-
manned in office for some months there
after.
| At this point the court Interrupted coun-
! sci and announced recess until p. M.
| ~
AFTERNOON SESSION.
When court reconvened at p. M. Mi.
Sears continued his argument.
/ In addition to the reason already noted,
counsel said the act OF March 80 was un-
constitutional because the caption did no,
contain any provision regarding the con-
tinuanoe in office of school trustees. The
method OF their uniform election was men
toned, but the other matter did not ap-
pear in the caption, Counsel then cited
from the seth Texas a decision of Judge
Gaines regarding the matter of the sub
stance or effect of bill being expressed
in It's title.
The terms of Messrs. Cade and shearu.
counsel declared. had expired. bur those
OF iiye other members, including the
mayor, had not expired. BY Virtue OF
provisions OF the new law Messrs. Jones
and Dow had been legally elected by the
other lawful members of the board, and
had also been appointed by the city coun-
Gil under the provisions OF the city char
I ter.
The State superintendent, counsel
thought had nothing to say as to who
should and should not be officers. II he
did have this power, however, he had
stated that the mayor was a member of
certified copies OF communications sent out
by MI. Kendall TO support this statement
and asked why, In the light OF later
events, Mr.. Kendall had taken such ac-
4 tion.
He reversed his ruling subsequently,"
replied Messrs. Ross and Oliver OF coun-
sci for the plaintiffs.
! Mr.. Sears denied the right of Mr.. Ken
Z dali to make ruling or to reverse II.
The State board had given the hearing OF
mis- case ffteen minutes time. counsel de-
h clared, and the members OF the beard
knew no more about the matter In hand
than counsel knew OF the Hottentot Ian.
guage. Counsel then read from the stat
utes the act defining the duties OF the
State superintendent and commended that
the officers over which that official had
Jurisdiction were teachers and subor-
dinates. and that he had nothing to do
with school trustees. Judge Bliss OF the
district court at Sherman had ruled that
this act was wholly Invalid.
For the next few moments Messrs. Sears
and oliver spared regarding the matters
coming under the scope OF the argument.
4 At the close OF tho bout Mr.. Sears took
occasion 20 characterize the pleadings OF
the plaintiffs as silly and absurd aud the
act defining the duties OF the State super
intendent as OF such nature as to make
the matter OF uniform construction an
impossiblllty.
Counsel commended. further, that all ths
| plaintiffs had not sworn TO the allegations
made In their petition. Neither did they