Texas Christian Advocate (Dallas, Tex.), Vol. 50, No. 11, Ed. 1 Thursday, November 5, 1903 Page: 2 of 16
sixteen pages : ill. ; page 18 x 14 in. Scanned from physical pages.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
TEXAS CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE.
2
November 5, 1903.
INJUNCTION DISSOLVED
clothed with the power of human in-
fluence, and find the use of human
tongues, and human voices, to frame
prayed for in his answer, ana that it _ .
be decreed that all the defendants in the devil’s poisoned thoughts in the
Heaven is so much higher than hell
that we might as well give up any
plan of being able to toboggan into
the city.—Ram’s Horn.
this case act in conformity with the
judgment herein rendered, and proceed
to canvass the result of said election,
and declare the result thereof as re-
quired by law, and recover their costs
incurred in this cause.
ive callings, and they accepted such li-
cense or grant, subject to the limita-
tions imposed by law, and if the peo-
ple by a lawful course see proper to
avail themselves of the privilege
granted by law to prohibit the sale of
intoxicating liquors in territory pre-
scribed by statute, plaintiffs cannot be
heard -to complain to that extent that
they can lawfully seek to set aside and
hold for naught the result of an elec-
tion held, under the evidence in this
case, substantially in accordance with
the forms of law.
If this law be a bad one, it is for the
Legislature to remedy, and courts are
not clothed with power to go further
than to declare the law as it is writ-
ten.
This court has at length, and to
some extent, gone beyond the ordinary
methods of rendering a decision in this
case, for the reason of the many inter-
ests involved, and with that spirit of
impartiality that should prompt ev-
ery decree, and laying aside every con-
sideration and feeling, except a desire
to declare the law as it is prescribed
by statute and the decisions of our
higher courts. - It is the judgment of
this court that the injunction hereto-
fore issued in this cause be dissolved,
that the plaintiffs take nothing by this
suit and that judgment be rendered for
the defendant, W. S. Cunningham, as
thoughts find a welcome, is defiled
thereby, then apostasy cannot be ac-
counted for except upon the suppo-
sition that it begins and ends in one
act of the will antecedent to any
thought. In that case, gradual apos-
tasy is out of the question, and back-
sliding is a meaningless word. Then,
where and how does temptation come
in?
No temptation to evil can come on
the wings of a pure thought. “Let no
man say, when he is tempted, I am
tempted of God; for God cannot be
tempted with evil, neither tempteth he
any man. But every man is tempted
when he is drawn away of his own lust,
and enticed. Then when lust hath con-
ceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin,
when it is finished, bringeth forth
death.” (Jas. 1:13-15.) In this scrip-
ture the apostle gives us the philoso-
phy of sin. He tells how it enters th?,
heart, how it comes to life there and
goes forth on its mission of ruin, and
ends in death. It is external to the
mind when perceived, and desire or
lust draws the mind toward it, and en-
ticed or seduced, the lust conceives
and the embryo is sin and the progeny
is sin. It is thus that the principles of
wrong become active evil and come to
life in human consciousness, are
fraud, to show that fraud in fact did
exist.
That the Lometa box was closed for
an hour during the day of the elec-
tion none will deny—the presiding of-
ficer of that voting box, however, says
that he only remained away from the
polls about twenty minutes and that no
person was deprived of the privilege
of voting—there has been not even a
syllable of evidence that would even
tend to create a suspicion that any one
was deprived of voting at that box ac-
cording to the dictates of his own con-
science, or that any fraud was prac-
ticed in any manner whatever at the
election at that place. That any ticket
was opened at that box by the pre-
siding officer for the purpose of expos-
ing a ballot the evidence wholly fails
to substantiate, and at most it only
indicates an honest purpose o,n the
part of the presiding officer to protect
his friend and neighbor from imposi-
tion by reason of the fact that it was
his understanding that the voter could
not read—and this conclusion is fully
borne out by the testimony of the
voter himself, who admitted upon the
stand that he had publicly asserted his
intention to vote a different ticket
from the one voted, and the size of the
different tickets were such that fully
justified the presiding officer in the be-
lief that the voter had made a mistake,
but when informed that no mistake
had been made the ticket was deposit-
ed without exposure any more than in
all other tickets voted at that box. It
is not shown that a single voter was
deprived the right to vote at Lometa
box by reason of the officers of elec-
tion closing the polls for the purpose
of going to their meals at the noon
hour.
As to the voter, Arch Hatley, being
deprived of his right to vote, it was
simply the result of his own negli-
gence, and no one should be heard to
complain-—at least no election could be
determined invalid for trifling matters
of this kind, where the voter must be
held to that degree of diligence in or-
der to cast his vote, that would be re-
quired of a citizen under ordinary cir-
cumstances. He is presumed to know
the law, and not having his poll tax
receipt, he should have prepared a
proper affidavit and presented same to
the presiding officers, if the one furn-
ished did not exactly cover the facts as
they existed in his case. The evidence
shows inexcusable negligence upon his
part, and further shows that the elec-
tion officers did evn more than was
required of them under the law in try-
ing to assist him to prepare his affida-
vit so as to entitle him to vote, which
he refused to do.
As to the interference with the elec-
tion at Rock Church and Adamsville,
there is absolutely no evidence to war-
rant this allegation, neither is there
evidence to warrant the same allega-
tion as to interference with the elec-
tion by ladies at Lometa. There is no
evidence to sustain the other allega-
tions in the petition, except there is
evidence showing that two negroes
were deterred from voting by state-
ments made by a voter at the polls in
the early morning, and whether the
statements made as charged in the bill
be true or false, yet it is further shown
that these same negroes voted later on,
and the way in which this evidence is
presented to this court, it is not shown
that any voter was deterred from ex-
pressing his will at the ballot box on
the occasion of this election.
It is charged in the bill that ladies
and children thronged the polls, and
intimidated voters from voting the
anti-prohibition ticket. Again this
court is at a loss to determine from
the evidence that any voter was de-
terred by this means from voting at
the polls. A fact alleged cannot be
presumed, without evidence to support
it, and all of the evidence adduced be-
fore this court not only shows a fail-
ure on the part of these women to in-
fluence those testifying in this case,
but in each and every instance the wit-
nesses state emphatically that they
voted the anti-prohibition ticket, and
that the entreaties of the ladies were
not heeded. Their persuasion may
have materially affected the result of
this election, but it is not shown to be
the fact in this case, and on the other
hand the evidence shows that at the
Lampasas box, where this charge is
more prominently alleged to have oc-
curred, the anti-prohibition cause car-
ried by a considerable majority. Again,
admitting that these ladies were there,
it is not shown that they engaged in
any conduct other than that permitted
by law. The evidence shows no tu-
mult or riot that would render them
subject to a proceeding for violation of
a criminal statute. It may be a novel
procedure, as many witnesses testified,
but is it unlawful? Under the statute
then in force it certainly was not. It
is alleged that they had dinner in the
courthouse yard for the purpose of as-
sisting their cause, but the evidence
shows that all were invited alike, and
the permission of the Sheriff was
granted before they attempted to serve
this dinner, and doubtless many per-
honeyed words of flattery and delusion,
and reproduce the hellish brood.
From this point of view we can un-
derstand the lines quoted in the epistle
of James, and also this, “None calleth
for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth;
they trust in vanity, and speak lies;
they conceive mischief and bring forth
iniquity; they hatch cockatrice eggs
and weave the spider’s web; he that
eateth of their eggs dieth, and that
which is crushed breaketh out into a
viper.” (Isa. 59:4-5.)
If bin is less numerous, if sin is less
sinful and less virulent in hearts, lives
and country where moral law is un-
known than where it is known, then
it seems to me wisdom, justice and
mercy with one voice proclaim, “Law
is an arbitrary and cruel thing.”
H. T. HILL.
Center Point, Texas.
POSTHUMOUS INFLUENCE.
. Is it not true that the example of a
good person and the influence derived
therefrom is like the soul itseli—im-
. mortal? Otherwise it would not have
. been said “their works do follow
. them.” That the righteous dead, like
. Abel, still continue to "speak after
their bodies sleep in the dust, is evi-
dent from the structure of human so-
, ciety and from facts attested by the
observation and experience of all men.
• We are born without language and
without thought; our minds in their
’ germination are subjected to the mold-
’ ing influence of others. Thus, man,
i made up of his beliefs, purposes, affec-
tions, tastes and habits manifested in
all he does and does not, is but the
. result of the photographing made on
. his mind by others. In this photograph-
, ing work the parents, school teachers,
. associates and the periodicals we read
, all come in for their share. The in-
fluence of the father and mother will
. continue to be felt long after they
have sunk into the silence and shades
, of the tomb. The recollection of their
’ advice and example is the beacon to
' direct our course in darkness of life’s
' pilgrimage; and these influences thus
. aerived we impart to those whom
, Providence may commit to our charge,
' and thus through succeeding genera-
tions, our parents being dead will
speak. This fact, as well as revelation,
should urge parents to “bring up their
children in the nurture and admoni-
, tion of the Lord." remembering na-
ture’s lesson. “As the twig was bent
the tree inclined.” The impressions
children receive in the hey-day of life,
. in the quiet and seclusion of the domes-
, tic circle, will be proclaimed from the
. housetops on the judgment morn. All
> Christians derive important and im-
’ pressive lessons from the instruction
of the dead. We are indebted not
only to Abraham, Moses and Daniel
and the college of apostles and the
early Christians for the spread of the
, gospel and the blessings under God
. it brings to us, but also to the
bold soldiers of the cross that were
leaders in the ranks of Israel’s host
in the early settlements of this coun-
. try. The names of Beverly, Bates,
. Birdwell, Baldridge, Ellis, Fields, Mc-
Kenzie and others were household
words. Their godly walk and pious
> conversation have impressed many,
called of God, chosen and faitnful.
! They have chained their influence to
the gospel car, and it will roll on down
, the ages. May we all so labor for
. God and the Church that we may leave
, in the world an element of religious
. power that shall go on accumulating
J until the end of time.
, J. W. BLACKBURN.
Yowell, Texas.
sons voting their different views upon
this question partook of their hospi-
tality alike. But did this unlawfully
affect the result of this election? The
evidence and the law fail to support
such contention. For the sake of ar-
gument, admit that it was improper
(which is only admitted for the pur-
pose of this statement) yet it certainly
was mot unlawful. If, then, it was im-
proper, who was present? Not only
the ladies and men who were working
for the success of prohibition were
present, but the evidence shows that
the anti-prohibitionists were there
working also. It is admitted that two
negroes were run away from one voter
interested in the anti-prohibition
cause, and another voter’s ticket taken
from his hand when in company with
another anti-prohibitionist, who de-
sired him to cast his vote, and beyond
any question, both sides were striving
for the success of their cause. If, then,
this course be improper, can it be said
that it is improper on one side, be-
cause ladies were engaged in the work,
and strictly proper on the other, be-
cause only advocated by men? That
cannot be the rule, especially when ap-
plied for judicial determination, and if
not lawfully wrong, plaintiffs cannot
be heard to complain after defeat that
a practice was improper in which they
participated and accepted the benefits,
as shown by the result of the election
returns at the town of Lampasas.
Aga'in, plaintiffs comntend that voters
were intimidated by reason of the acts
of the ladies and children at the polls.
As presented by this evidence, this
court can not accede to this proposi-
tion. To intimidate primarily means
to make fearful, to inspire with fear,
and to seriously contend that women
and children by singing songs and
serving free lunch could intimidate
voters of western Texas, is a proposi-
tion to which this court cannot assent.
Could this court be warranted in set-
ting aside the result of an election on
such meagre testimony, when not even
a suspicion of injustice has been
proven throughout the entire proced-
ure? Again, tor the sake of argument,
admit that every charge as to partic-
ular voters being deterred from cast-
ing their votes be true, still the major-
ity would not be affected only as to
that number, and the result would be
the same, and this court knows of no
rule of law, either statutory or moral,
that would justify the setting aside of
the will of the people as expressed at
a public election in the absence of di-
rect. and positive proof of fraud suff-
cieat to change the result. And on the
othher hand, any court woul be doing
violence to the purposes of its own trib-
unal, as well as to the people at large,
that would arbitrarily set at naught
the expression of a majority of the
people when every particle of the evi-
dence adduced tends to show a fair
election wherein the majority have
spoken their sentiments through the
means of the public ballot. To pursue
any other course would be fraught
with danger, not only to the stability
and continuation of government, but
would necessarily result in bringing
into contempt the courts, which must
be sustained and upheld to prevent
disorder, strife and anarchy. The
whole fabric of our institutions is
based upon this policy, and while some
may feel aggrieved at the results, tem-
porarily, yet experience and knowl-
edge both show that no other source
can with safety be pursued, even if any
court could ever be so weak and impo-
tent as to entertain ideas other than
as above stated.
One other question remains. The
plaintiffs contend that this law is un-
constitutional, both as against our
State and Federal constitutions, and
that if the result of this election be
permitted to be declared according to
our statutory law, that it amounts to
a confiscation of plaintiffs’ property.
This question has been decided ad-
versely to plaintiffs’ contention by
both our State and Federal Courts, by
the Court of Civil Appeals, by the Su-
preme Court of Texas, and by the Cir-
cuit Court and the Supreme Court of
the United States, and even were this
court inclined to a different view
(which, however, is not the case), the
restriction thrown around it is such
that it would be recreant to duty to fail
to bow in deference to these tribunals
where these questions must be settled
and the correctness or incorrectness of
these contentions determined.
It is further contended by plaintiffs
that the effect of this law will be to
confiscate their property and render
valueless their present holdings. This,
however, is a question that this court
cannot consider, however much in-
clined it might be to do so, for the rea-
son that our courts have decided ad-
versely to plaintiffs’ contention, and
this rule of law, both statutory and
through the decisions of our higher
courts, has been announced long prior
to the issuance of the license to carry
on the business in which plaintiffs are
engaged. In other words, such per-
mission was granted to the people to
prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors
by pursuing a certain course at the
time the license was granted to plain-
tiffs herein to engage in their respect-
Monday morning at 9:30 Judge
Clarence Martin dissolved the injunc-
tion, which was granted by Judge
Furman, restraining the counting of
the ballots at the Lometa box, and the
declaration of the result in the recent
prohibition election in Lampasas
County. His opinion will be of inter-
est to the people of this county on
both sides of this question, and as it
is probably the first of the opinions
rendered on this question, it may be
of State-wide interest, hence it is
given in full below:
THE DECISION.
This case being one in which not
only the property interests of citizens
are involved, but also the question of
a proper determination of the right of
the people to determine a certain meas-
ure by means of a public election, this
court has allowed a full and complete
investigation, regardless of technical
exceptions, with the purpose in view to
reach a proper and correct solution of
the issues involved—in accordance
with the rules of law.
It should be a matter of universal
knowledge that the province of all
courts is to arrive at what the law is
in all given cases arising within their
respective jurisdictions, and courts
cannot, if they would, stop to consider
or discuss the propriety or correctness
of this or any other law under investi-
gation, that being a matter delegated
to the legislative branch of the govern-
ment, and it would be improper and
revolutionary for any court to take
such matters into consideration in the
decision of any question of law sub-
mitted for its determination.
This being a question, as here pre-
sented, involving political and proper-
ty rights of citizens of this State, a
careful investigation should be ac-
corded the plaintiffs asserting such
rights on the one side and to the de-
fendants asserting their rights through
the effect of an election held to deter-
mine this question, on the other, and
this court deems it necessary to here
state that courts should always be
open to the citizen to adjudicate griev-
ances of any nature, whatsoever; and
courts must be guided by the long es-
tablished rules of procedure which
should not be ruthlessly set aside to
bow to the will of public clamor that
would often do injustice to the citizen
that would be demnounced as unjust and
rebellious in more sober moments.
This court must say that while the in-
junction in this case was not granted
in the first instance by the judge now
presiding, yet under the allegations in
the bill, sworm to by applicants, alleg-
ing fraud in holding the election, in-
timidation of voters, refusal to allow
qualified voters to cast their votes at
the election and in certain instances
that ballots were taken from the
hands of voters desiring to cast their
vote for anti-prohibition and refusing
them the privilege of so voting, by
threats of violence and ostracism
backed up and supported by a man
armed with a pistol at the polls threat-
ening to put men in jail for voting the
anti-prohibition ticket, this court with-
out hesitancy most emphatically as-
serts that the granting of the writ of
injunction, based upon such allega-
tions, was not only a right, but the un-
qualified duty of the judge granting
the writ, and not only would he have
been recreant to duty to have refused
a writ of injunction based upon such
allegations when presented to him in
his own judicial district, but it would
have cast a reflection upon the honor
and integrity of any people that he
would deprive of the opportunity to in-
vestigate publicly the truthfulness of
such charges, together with many oth-
ers in this application that this court
has not above enumerated, and all of
which are, of course, taken into consid-
eration in reaching this conclusion.
The writ of injunction having been
properly granted in the first instance,
the truthfulness of the allegations and
whether or not, if any are shown to be
true, they are sufficient to invalidate
the local cption election in this coun-
ty is therefore, the question that now
presents itself to this court for judi-
cial determination—and though courts
know not persons nor conditions in
reaching a proper solution of judicial
questions, yet all must confess that
personal surroundings and local con-
ditions are often such that even courts
should be deeply impressed with the
fact that human nature is such that
even they are subject to its weakness
and should be armed with the precau-
tion to carefully obliterate all such
feelings from their minds before at-
tempting to render a judicial decision,
and such course this court has unques-
tionably endeavored to pursue.
It is the policy of the law to uphold
all elections by the people where the
same can be done lawfully and the will
of the people has been fairly expressed,
and the burden of proof rests upon him
who would seek to set it aside for
RELATION OF SIN TO LAW.
No. 2.
The will has about as much to do
with the moral quality of action as it
has with the flavor of an apple—can
choose both, but it can make neither.
Who does not know that there is not
will power in the world sufficient to
make wrong right or right wrong? In
the Bible good and evil are set before
us as objects of choice; things to be
chosen by the will, not made by it. A
deed is morally right or wrong, ac-
cording to the principle involved in
the deed. Therefore, whoever chooses
to do the wrong deed, whether he
knows it is wrong or not, chooses evil
because evil is in the deed;
and neither ignorance nor knowl-
edge nor will can make any difference
in the principle involved. To illus-
trate: A man was offered his choice
of two oranges; he asked, “Are they
sweet?” “One is,” said the giver; "but
you must judge for yourself.” He
took the one he thought was sweet and
found that his desire for a sweet
orange, his belief that it was sweet,
and his will that it should be sweet,
could not make it so; he got the acid
because he ignorantly chose the
orange that had the acid in it.
This view does not refer evil deeds
to antecedent evil dispositions or prin-
ciples in human nature to account for
their evil quality, nor does it attribute
the rise of evil to any disposition, in-
clination, tendency or controlling state
of the human mind, whether planted
by the Creator or acquired by the crea-
ture. But it discovers the ground, and
as I believe the only ground for wise
and just legislation. For if there is in
thought, word or deed no evil inherent
independent of all law, all human
knowledge and will, then such a thing
as active evil is impossible. There
could be no evil communications to cor-
rupt good manners. No one could im-
part evil to another, and if sin could
have entered into the world it would
have died out long since.
But every one knows, or ought to
know, how easy it is to place an evil
thought in a boy’s mind that shall
poison the whole course of his life; and
that in this way sin, as an ever spread-
ing infection, has defiled the moral at-
mosphere of the ■whole earth, and al-
most every human soul. “For out of
the heart proceed evil thoughts, mur-
ders, adulteries, fornications, thefts,
false-witness, blasphemies; these are
the things which defile a man,” etc.
(Mat. 15:19-20).
When a man reads this passage in
the light (?) of the doctrine of inherit-
ed sin he sees the heart as an unclean
cage of birds, not as a cage of unclean
birds. He thinks the cage has defiled
the poor little birdies and so both are
unclean. To drop the figure, Jesus
says, “The thoughts defile the man.”
But Dr. Ryle says, “We see from this
passage that the heart is the chief
source of defilement and impurity in
God’s sight.” How often I have heard
from the pulpit and read in book that
a wicked man can not think a pure
thought, I do not remember; but far
oftener I have known the reverse to be
true. If every pure thought entering
a corrupt heart is thereby defiled, then
verily there is no salvation for the
wicked, for then the heavenly thought
that Christ died for sinners would be-
come a vile thought in every sinner’s
heart. On the other hand, if it be not
true that, no matter how pure the
heart in which one of these filthy
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Rankin, George C. Texas Christian Advocate (Dallas, Tex.), Vol. 50, No. 11, Ed. 1 Thursday, November 5, 1903, newspaper, November 5, 1903; Dallas, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1594194/m1/2/: accessed June 10, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Library and Archives Commission.