The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-05-14
Enty-Hins Against Thirty- Nine


The Aberdeen Examiner thinks that
Mr. Houston, one of the members from
Monroe. Of the last Legislature, and, BY
the way, a clever gentleman and faith
ful representative, did something very
eommendable when he moved IS an
amendment to the supervision law the
following proFiso:
Provided, That in case OF legal pro- /
ccedings being instituted enjoining said |
Commissioners from exercising their au-
thority under this act, the salaries OF said
Commissioners aud Clerk shall cease dur
ing the time their duties may be held IN
allegiance by snch legal proceedings.
This conduct of Mr. Houston is not
open to criticism because it was well
understood by the members of the
House that be was opposed to suPery,.
sion and would use all honorable means
to cripple the bin on its passage or on
its operations after it became law.
] But if Mr.. Houston had been a friend
of the measure and had offered the
] amendment, or had voted forit if offered
by another, it would have struck us that
his wisdom was not of that profound
sort which keeps w-makers from doing
thoughtless things.
The mer in the amendment must be
tested FROM the standpoint of the major
ity, who had determined that there
should be supervision, and not from the
standpoint of the minority, who we're
equally as determined that the ILL
should fail. With the minority any
. motion which tended to defeat the
objects of the bill was right AID the
more entitled to applause, and the OF
posers to condemnation. Was the
! amendment an amendment in fact as
we'll as in name, and was it such an
amendment as public duty required the
: majority to support?
In the first place it is an extremely
/ unusual amendment, there being within
!. orr knowledge, but one instance in
), which such an amendment has been in
/ corporated in any law. 1t so happens
!, that the experience of all who have
watched the proceedings of Legislative
: assemblies is not limited on the subject
: At every session of the Legislature q
o Mississippi laws are passed which are
! roundly denounced as being unconstitu
y tional aud yet the members who pass Of
, oppose them never dream of adding any
such proris6 rs that of Mr.. Houston
Il In the second place, if lopted it would
l. have placed it in the power of thu
smallest road in the State to have sus
e pended the operations of the Commits
sion, though every other road had de
is sired to submit to it. This is an all
% sufficient reason for the rejection of tn
e amendment.
Is Lastly, it was believed by all that th
p passage of the bill would have been Sc
rs riously endangered by amendments, an
ot the friends of the measure in the Hous
believed that the bill rs it came fror
'r the Senate was better than no law.
1t 1t is well to bear in mind that ever
y unconstitutional law is not necessarily
e bad law. In 1876 a law was passe
"a creating Judicial district Of the count
% of Warren and providing scheme ia
T paying the salaries of the circuit judg
$ and chancellor. The Supreme Court q
: its October term decided that the pre-
g visions of the law for payment of thes
+ officers was unconstitutional, and yet W
are informed that the law has been ust
ct full in the past though not now desir'
'r BILE. While this law was being consiC
e. cred in the Senate Hon Amos r. John.
ID ton, then a member from Kinds, sal
n that he did not believe it was constitr
r tional, and did not vote for it; and We
1e with all of his ''sagacity and fidelity"
}! did not seem to him that Proeiso lik
10 Mr.. Houston's was proper thing. u
v der this unconstitutional law some $25
al 900 or 10000 has been paid out.
e When the law just referred to wa
u passed it was understood by its friend
At that the Offices of Circuit Judge an
Chancellor were to be held by one per
r son, though not so expressed in the law
le and, in fact, one person was appointe
Z and exercised the function and drew tn
'e pay of both Offices In this particdla
r the law is a good illustration of a laV
le not uncons itutional son it's face" an
+ we cite it for the benefit of our contem
y poraries of the Hill City.
, Mr.. Houston won some laureIs as
e member of the Legislature; but his pre-
posed proriso to the fifth section of tn
supervision law was not one of them.