St. Landry democrat., 1883-06-09
Let it stand.
NO. Pieayune.

The Picayune is not always able to
aoree with the OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES,
ascent in its opinion OF the ability with
which that journal is edited. But when
f. saws of the present constitution OF the
State. Let it Stand" the Picaynne is
alphabetically concordant. The Monroe
Bulletin takes eloquent exception and
makes indignant protest. 1t goes Tor
the States fundamental instrument al
ter this fashion: 9e
Article 200 says the State tax shall. not ex-
coed six and no municipal Tax shall exceed Ten
mills. Go and ask the citizens OF New orleans
what they are paying through the various IN
terpretations OF that article by the present ~
preme Court-not less than thirty-flve NILS mills
but "let it stand"
owner of every head of family or persons
having a mother or father, a person OF per
sons dependent on him or her Tor snp ,ln y
lands. cattle and provisions to the value OF
$1,000. The present Supreme Court has ignored
the article as admitted by the Capltohan-Ad-
yocate, but ''let it stand"
And SO forth. "Now we submit" it
ierkily concludes, shat a constitution
that the Supreme Court can interpret
conscientionsly, directly in opposition
to it's letter and spirit, ought not to
stand one day longer than is possible
to change it legally"
We won't argue the specific points.
We won't ask the Bulletin whether the
country parishes are as honestly trying
to nav up as New Orleans. We don't sup
nose the taxation is hurting North Louis
lana any, though some OF them are trying
to sbirk the driblet they let into. the
leyee fund. We won't complain about
the homestead business, except to the
legislature. This thing, Of blaming
Woodworking Supreme Court Tor every
thing imaginable, is rather Overcome.
Show us a Supreme Court OF announcer
State which has done more and more
thorough work. Mind, we don't in
dorse its all. But there is better way
tn correct an occasional error or mis-
take than to grub up the roots OF the
constitution. =,
The Picaynne has never spoken with
two tnnoues on this head. Its one doc
trine has always been-let the constitu-
tion stand for the good that is in it; cor
rect its errors by amendment.
As we have an intelligent auditory
we can always make legal points brief,
and every reader viii supply the argu-
ment as he goes on. We say, then,
that frequent changes of constitution
destroy that reverence for fundamental
law which is the most salutary founda-
ton of republican institutions. That
onr constitution contains more good
points than bad ones, by a large major
| ity. That Gery bad point can be
cured by amendment, without the
costly process OF a convention. That
every convention is hasty and careless
and that new one viii make as many
new bad points as it will correct. That
the convention of 1879 was one of the
most thoughtful and considerable ever
assembled in the State, and most OF its
work should stand sure. s
Let us state the general principle OF
amendment concisely:
In voting on an amendment the peo-
| ple vote on a short and comprehended
proposition, and will not adopt it unless
| it is good. In voting on new consti-
tuition they vote on it in bulk, and over
look minor defects-indeed, they can't
defeat these without defeating all.
Again, no legislature dare propose an
amendment eradicating from the con-
stitution one of it's most excellent
points. A convention might drop such
a point-either with or without design
! and the people would overlook it.
| A convention means a new deal. But
| the time for new deal is in 1884, and
we don't need convention to engineer
it.