Browsing around, I found transcribed a letter from a minority report from a committee in the 1869 constitutional convention, the Reconstruction Convention, which lamented several recommendations not adopted by the convention which their committee had championed, including two which perked up your correspondent's attention: Habeas corpus powers for district judges and appointment instead of election for District Attorneys:
The undersigned would also recommend that special authority be conferred on district judges to grant writs of habeas corpus, as recommended in the majority report.Texas district judges had enjoyed habeas authority since the inception of the Republic, so this was a big change. Grits has discussed before how, historically, nearly all legislative interventions into habeas corpus reduce judicial power, and this was no exception. (That's part of what makes Texas' junk science writ so remarkable - there are few other examples which I can find of legislatures in any jurisdiction expanding habeas power instead of the courts.) Here we see in 1869 one of the more radical reductions in Texas judges' habeas power - removing it from the hands of the front-line ministers of justice and reserving it for the bigshots in Austin.
The minority of the committee agree also with the majority in recommending that the district attorneys shall be appointed by the Supreme Court and commissioned by the Governor.
For that matter, how different would the criminal justice system be today if District Attorneys were "appointed by the Supreme Court and commissioned by the Governor" instead of popularly elected on a partisan basis? We hear proposals in the modern era regarding appointment vs. election of judges, but appointment of DAs could augur even happier results. Perhaps having Texas DAs appointed by the Supreme Court is a suggestion which needs to be revived?