4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 1 (view source)
Revision as of 13:46, July 24, 2023
, July 24, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
* ''Tugwell v. Eagle Pass Ferry Co.'', 9 S.W. 120, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/009_SW_120.pdf#page=3 122-23] (Tex. 1888) ("But the question arises, has the state the right to grant a franchise for a ferry across a stream which constitutes a boundary between it and another state, or between it and a foreign nation? The answer to this is that it has the right, as far as its territory extends; that it, in ordinary cases, to the middle of the stream. This principle is distinctly announced by the supreme court of the United States in ''Conway v. Taylor's Ex'r'', 1 Black, 603. . . . The political jurisdiction of the state extends to its boundary, which, by article 5 of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, is fixed, on the west, at the middle of the Rio Grande river.") | * ''Tugwell v. Eagle Pass Ferry Co.'', 9 S.W. 120, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/009_SW_120.pdf#page=3 122-23] (Tex. 1888) ("But the question arises, has the state the right to grant a franchise for a ferry across a stream which constitutes a boundary between it and another state, or between it and a foreign nation? The answer to this is that it has the right, as far as its territory extends; that it, in ordinary cases, to the middle of the stream. This principle is distinctly announced by the supreme court of the United States in ''Conway v. Taylor's Ex'r'', 1 Black, 603. . . . The political jurisdiction of the state extends to its boundary, which, by article 5 of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, is fixed, on the west, at the middle of the Rio Grande river.") | ||
* ''Werner v. City of Galveston'', 7 S.W. 726, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''Werner v. City of Galveston'', 7 S.W. 726, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/007_SW_726.pdf#page=2 727] (Tex. 1888) ("It is a well-settled principle that the legislature cannot delegate its authority to make laws by submitting the question of their enactment to a popular vote; and in ''State v. Swisher'', 17 Tex. 441, this court held an act of the legislature which authorized the counties of the state to determine by popular vote whether liquor should be sold in their respective limits to be unconstitutional. But it does not follow from this that the legislature has no authority to confer a power upon a municipal corporation, and to authorize its acceptance or rejection by the municipality according to the will of its voters as expressed at the ballot-box.") | ||
* ''Morris & Cummings v. State'', 62 Tex. 728, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/62_Tex._728.pdf#page=11 738-39] (1884) ("But we are not pointed to any act of congress upon this subject whatever, and we certainly know of none which has attempted such a regulation. It is not enough that the harbor of Corpus Christi, and the water-borne commerce that passes to and from it, are within the general laws regulating the commerce of the country. . . . This principle is so well sustained by the authorities that no further discussion of it is required. We think, therefore, that the legislation of our state upon the subject of the franchise in question is not in violation of the constitution of the United States.") | * ''Morris & Cummings v. State'', 62 Tex. 728, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/62_Tex._728.pdf#page=11 738-39] (1884) ("But we are not pointed to any act of congress upon this subject whatever, and we certainly know of none which has attempted such a regulation. It is not enough that the harbor of Corpus Christi, and the water-borne commerce that passes to and from it, are within the general laws regulating the commerce of the country. . . . This principle is so well sustained by the authorities that no further discussion of it is required. We think, therefore, that the legislation of our state upon the subject of the franchise in question is not in violation of the constitution of the United States.") | ||