The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-02-12
Il STATES RIGHT OF APPEAL

sidered criminal case us that term Is used
In the constitution" "''"
>, The brief then discusses decisions Of m.
united states supreme court that have
been cited in opposition TO snnssi Eos
example: "PPe"l' TOT
:, 70 show that the supreme court Of tho
United states, In Boyd VS. United states
Intended TO so no further thnn tn dsciIe
not that that was criminal case IN co.,
cruz terms, but that II was quasi criminal
use 10 such an extent as 70 come within
, M provisions OF the hfth amendment to
the constitution OF the United States we
leter 70 the case OF United states vs. Zuck
~ !si y. y, 4i5l. In which the court SAYS
\. SD: "A witness who proves facts en-
conr. ~ ,ne p'ainuu 10 a proceeding la
eur or the United States. even 1.-The
plalndn be the government, 10 Judgment
LOT money only, aud not to n Judgment
w wht .h directy involves the personal safety
az 'he defendant, is, not within the mean.
Ing Of tho sixth amendment. a viI6ss.
against an accused In a criminal pretecu
IT seems to us that only such nicely Of
discrimination as would divide a hair
twiNt south and southwest side conld
make q difference between criminal
case, as used In the 9th amendment. and
u criminal prosecution as uscd in the
sixth amendment Of the constitution ar ths
nitCd States" NN
Upon the proposition that a suit bv the
otste TO recover penalties for Violations
ot the antitrust law does moi come vrithin
the provisions Of section pc article 4 Of
inc constitution, but that such a suit is "A
civil action and governed bv the rules OF
ploSeaure applicable to civil actions. in
Guiding the right OF the State 10 RppeaI
Tue Following authorities arc submitted.
Aninnler VS.. The Governor Il Il II 96yl.
state VS. Judges t4S La. AnuD. ilGij: state
vs. Thomas az Robinson, La, IS sts'e
vs. Linton q Robinson. La. 10: state vs.
" uuslns q Robinson, la. 252,, state vs.
Hayden C32 Wis. GB3; state vs. smith 10
WIS 100; People VS., Glasgow 40 y. T.,
~
IL ,2l9) state vs., Kansas city L. Il. Co
20 Mo; Apr, ESQ; People vs. Briggs d14
N y. so; People VS. Merritt lol IT. App
Numerous State decisions are rcviewca
TO sustain the conclusion:
Ihe reasoning In those cases can not he
reconrlied with any other conclusion than
that suits In behalf oc the state 20 re-
cover penalties, iorfciturcs and cschpats.
as those terms are used In the constitution.
are civil eases"
70 oppose ths line Of decisions from
other States herein cited the plain near.
Ing Of the acts Of the legislatures and The
rulings OF our own courts we have only
me rulings Of the Federal courts 10 the
euect that within the meaning Of certain
provisions of the constitution Of the tslited
states suits for the recovery OF penSE les
are qunsl criminal actions" or actions "of
a criminal and not Of n civil nature"
We submit that mons Of these Federal
decisions, even II they are 10 be Implicitly
followed. are inconsistent with our conten.
tion that the case At bar is not % ariui-
inal case within the meaning OF section
20, article 5, OF our constitution
The trainers Of the constitution may very
wen be presumed to have attached TO the
terms 'crlmlual cases" the meaning SO
generally given 20 them by the courts ~
ms and other states. beginning In this
state with AuiaHler vs.. Governor II thcv
had intended 10 extend the provisions Of
section 20 article 3, TO suits "of a Grim.
innl nature" to all penal" aud quasi Grim.
inal' actions. according to the reasoning
9t Judge Brewer In lows va. C., and d
II. Il. Co., they would not have used the
general terms criminal cases
We submit further, that the language Of
the provision Of the constitution giving 10
the district courts jurisdiction ''of all suits
IN behalf Of the state to recover penalties,
forfCitrres and eschcats" is conclusive Of
the proposition that such wrts were IA.
tended to he considered as civil md not
criminal actions.