New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-10-31
NEW ORLEANS, TUESDAY, OCTOBER g. 1876

Err 81, 1876.
The Third Censtltatienal Amendment.
In the heat of discussion and electioneer-
ing on principles, parties and candidates.,
one important issue before the people seems
almost forgotten. In addition to the exer-
ciee of choice Of rulers for the coming
four and two year terms, the people are re-
quired to declare for or against five consti-
tutional amendments. The first, fourth
and fifth are reductions of the expense of
maintaining General Assembly, Governor,
Auditor, Treasurer, Attorney General and
district attorneys. None of these have
provoked any opposition. The second
amendment, which provides that no bill,
left in the Governors hands by legislative
adjournment, shall be law unless signed
by him within twenty days thereafter, has
been discovered to be . necessity. To the
third amendment objection has been made
on several grounds.
The object of this amendment is similar
to the first three above noted-to reduce
expense. For this purpose the parish courts
are to be abolished, and an annual saving
of $l35.Oc0 gained at once. The manner
this is to be accomplished is by dividing
the civil jurisdiction between the district
courts and justices of the peace, an appeal
lying on claims of over $50, and giving
to clerks of the district courts such judicial
power as is needed to issue writs, probate
wills with attendant appointments, grant
orders of succession sales, etc. The crimi-
nal jurisdiction of psrish courts is trans
ferred directly to the justices of the peace.
In presenting this amendment to the Leg
islature, where it came near defeat, its ad-
vocates showed the saving of money, the
simplicity of practice likely to follow, the
ignorance of the majority of parish judges,
the greater certainty of justice, and relied
greatly on the statement that it was merely
. return to the former condition of things.
Against all of these claims able arguments
have been made. The Republicans of
Tensas have declared in q series of resolu-
tions tnat the amendment will greatly in
crease the expense of criminal procedure,
and other opponents have attempted to
show that this expense would more than
counterbslance the gain. This argument
has no solid foundation, for the criminal
fees remaining unsltered. it can make but
little difference what court exacts them. A
scrutiny of their legality and correctness is
all that should be necessary to prevent any
increase.
The most powerful opposition to this
amendment has been made by W. F. Ker.
nan, Esq, of Clinton, Louisiana, . lawyer
whose opinions are entitled to great weight
Summed up his objections are:
l. That the distribution Of powers to
clerks and justices of the peace is not likely
to secure better service from persons
"learned in the law" and cites former ex
perience as test.
2. That the fees of the clerks would equal
the parish judges salaries.
3. That many parish judges are compe
tent, and with them the system works we'll
4. The extension of the criminal jurisdic
ton of justices of the peace, 80 that the
power to sentence to the Penitentiary il
placed in the hands of men who are hardly
able to write their names.
S. The clogging of the district courts by
extending their jurisdiction to amounts
over 500.
l and 3. These are weiShty objections, but
q portion may be disposed of by suggest
ing that the ignorance or capability of one
or the other class of officers presents nj
argument for or against system. Tht
very best that could be devised would be
intolerable if all were incompetent, and
conversely, . uniform degree of excel
lence might gain appreciation for the worst
No system can insure judges or clerkl
"learned ip the law" Is they should be, but
Intelligent voters can, and, % Mr.. Kernar
shows, have sometimes done 80.
9. The fees, the services being in addition
to the clerks present duties, should not be
large. In some States the costs Of entering
q suit are almost trivial, viz: Writ, five
cents; flung declaration, ten cents; entry
six cents, and the service in proportion
The change certainly can not affect the
sheriff's COSTS. These fees, too, can not b<
more than the expenses of the present
parish courts, exclusive of the salaries o.
judges, all of which were borne, as Mr.
Herman says, by the people of the parish
but under the proposed change they would
be divided among the suitors interested.
4. The intrusting justices of the peace
with extraordinary criminal powers is
more serious, but not fraught with the evi
consequences that Mr.. Herman thinks. Al
he says. parish judges have been regarded
as merely enlarged justices of the peace
Why not then enlarge the powers Of thu
justice instead of keeping the exaggeration
1t is here that his argument of the ignor
ance of those elected, and the impression O
the peopl that any one can fill eithe1
Office, has most force. 1t is this impression
then that must first be removed and tn,
''learned judge'' take the place of So uir'
Dogberry. But clause requiring such ,
condition would be as abortive as is tn,
sole condition of admission to the bar o
Indiana that the applicant shall be I
citizen of good moral character. But i
must be more than ignorance that will d.
harm under this amendment. The justio,
may try cases where the penalty is no
necessarily imprisonment in the Peniten
tiary or death, when the accused waive
trial by Jury. He may waive it, although
Judge Cooley declared he could not, and q
he may plead guilty. But man with sens
enough to commit IN ordinary crime will