The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1884-04-12

ment, although they gave to the
Legislature the right to increase the
number of District Judges "when
public business required it" could
not have known what would hap
pen in the future, they could not
have been legislating upon the term
of an office not then in existence.
Although it was possible that they
suspected that public business
might require an additional Judge
in some Of the Districts, yet, they
could not have known that fact,
else it would have been their duty
to have created more districts. They
could not have known when or
where public business would in
crease to such extent in the future
as to require Legislative action, or
how long public business, in some
Of the districts, might require the
assistance Of an additional Judge.
In our opinion, the Convention left
this whole subject matter in the
hands Of the Legislative department,
left it to act in a contingency of
this kind. For instance, suppose
the Legislature should determine
that public business required an adj
ditional Judge in district that his
services would not be required for
that purpose longer than one year,
would any one contend that the
Constitution meant, that in order to
procure his assistance for one year,
the State would be compelled to
pay him for four 7 In other words,
that the people would have to pay
Twelve instead Twelve instead of
Three Thousand Dollars. This
would be robbery Of the worst kind
because it would be sanctioned by,
and carried on under the forms of
law.
For these and many other rea-
sons, I am of opinion that the legis-
lature had the right to insert the
provision in question, and also, that
the Governor can find no authority
any where for ordering the election
of two Judges in this district at the
next election. The act creating
the Judgship does not provide for
the election of a successor and had
the Legislature intended that this
Office should exist longer than April
1884, such a provision would have
been inserted in the act That
there is a necessity for it, no one
will contend that it is uselessly
throwing away Twelve Thousand
Dollars which ought to be devoted
to the redemption of our overfowed
lands or to some charitable purpose,
no one will deny. The Judges are
never engaged at the same time.
While one is holding Court the
other is busy doing nothing and be-
ing paid Two Hundred and fifty |
dollars month for doing it.
In conclusion l hold that no such |
office as additional Judge has ever
been legally created in this district.
| hold that Act No. 90 of the acts
of 1882, is unconstitutional because
none of the requirements of Art. 4S |
of the Constitution were complied |
with before the act was passed, and
because the act upon its very face,
violates said article. This article
of the Constitution reads:
'No local or special law shall be |
passed on any subject not enumera-
ted in art. As Of this Constitution,
unless notice of the intention to APP
ply therefor shall have been pub
lished, without cost to the State, in |
the locality where the matter or
thing to be effected may be situa-
ted, which notice shall state the sub
stance of the contemplated, law,
shall be published at least thirty
days prior to the introduction into
the General Assembly Of such bill,
and in the same manner provided
by law for the advertisement of Ju.