The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-12-20
TICKET scALPlNe CASES.
A Review OF Judge Aliens Decision in
the Matter.

A Review OF Judge Aliens Decision IN
the Matter
To the Editor n The Post
We read with Interest the opinion Of
Judge 4. c. Allen as published ny yo1
today, rendered I'm thc habeas corpus hear
inE Of the ticket brokers Of Houston, who
Vere charged with violating the antl-scalp-
ms ordinance recently passed by the city
council.
We have the highest regari for Judge Al
len peIscraliy, he having been a member
Of on- arm, and also great respect for his
opinion as judge.
When these cases were called Judge Al.
len signihed his Willingness o certify them
direct 10 the court ~ criminal appeals FOR
immediate decision This could only he
done by agreement Of all parties. Counsel
for the ticket brokers objected, and in
sisted on a decision Of the lower court
The court OF criminal appeals. as the court
OF last resort, not having passed upon this
ordinance, and With all due Difference 10
Judge Aliens opinion, believing as we do
that the ordinance Is constitutional and
should be sustained, with your permission,
we give for publication, in Justice TO MI.
Joe 81. sam, the city attorney VINO adj
vised the city council that said ordinance
IS valid. our reasons for so believing.
Judge Allen holns that, IN criminal law,
doubts as 10 powers OF a municipal cor
poration are always resolved against IT,.
one OF the latest expressions Of our court
OF criminal appeals Is as follows; The
doctrine is that the courts are not author.
iZed 20 declare an ordinance unreasonable
and void unless It's unreasouGbeness shat
clearly appear Tx rarte NBuce, g. g.
w. R. 500, opinion rendered April II, 1901,
quoting Tx Parte BATHS IS 5. W. X. Sl3;
Thompson on Corporations, par. 1921; City
OF 81. Louis VS.. Weber, "A Mo, SAT
1t Is held Furthermore that the courts
will be liberal In unfolding an ordinance.
aud II it's unreasonableness be doubtful. It
VIII not be held void" Ell Parte BATHS,
d g. 5 w - R p Si4, quoting EH Parte
In this latter case Is found an extended
discussion OF municipal corporations and the
construction OF ordinances. That case holds,
in substance, that an ordinance shall be
given a reasonable construction. That Is.
q constr octiou that viii give effect To the
Intention OF the council enacting same, and
intsLdments which help TO sustain and
make Il operative are 60 be INDUCED aud
weighed by the court.
Article Sl3s X. s., provides as follows:
In all Interpretations the court shall
look diligently for the Intention OF the leg
islature. keeping In view at all times the
oid law, the evil and the remedy.'
statutes article 3 of the Penal Code OF
Texas pr orides Every law upon the sub,
Ject of crime shall be construed according
1t Is written without regard to distinctions
usually made between the construction OF
penal laws and laws upon other subjects "
so that the city council OF the city OF
Houston, no doubt having good reason
for the enactment OF the ordinance, and II
being valid and legitimate police regula
tlon under the police powers OF the city of
Houston, should be supported under the
above rules and decisions by every reason
able intendment, and the court should per
nit II to stand.
On the point that the charter OF a mun'ci-
pal corporation shall receive n reasonable
construction upon the powers conferred,
see in re CARA. 2s criminal appeals report,
The Janpln case. 81 S. W. r., p. 1l2s.
held the following:
1. That the anti-scslplng act Is a legltl-
mats and valid exercise OF the police pow
era
2. That ticket IL not property.
& That the act does not deprive q per.
SOP Of bis property without due process Of
4 The act does not create q monopoly
We respectfully submit that tbs objection
Found 20 the said act and the ground upon
wtich II was declared unconstifutional 10
tbe Jtnnin raSe doss not apply 10 fnie or
di14rfss rscsuss the sale ~ any uontranE
fs<ebis ticket, which eau not be used by