Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1885-10-10
rr,E NEW JUDICIARY ACT.

The Tuscarora Times. Review has here
tofore expressed it's opinion in opposition
to the new judiciary Act as a matter of
public policy, convenience and economy.
1t believes the change in the system in
imical to the public good, for reasons
given in q number of articles upon the sub.
iect. We are confident, says that jour
nal, that our views are Endorsed by at
least four.ffths of the people of the
State. It's popularity or unpopularity,
however, will make no difference, as the
matter stands at present. The Act has
been passed, approved and is part OF our
statutes and will go into operation unless
annulled by the Supreme Court upon
Constitutional grounds. That it will. or
should be annulled, we propose to prove
by a fair comparison Of the provisions OF
the bill with sections Of the State Con-
stitution bearing directly upon them.
Many of the points have been furnished
US by a competent attorney who has
carefully considered the subject, and we
only regret our inability to present them
as clearly and forcibly to our readers as
could be done by a member OF the legal
profession. However, we will endeavor
to render them with such clearness that
they will be understood by those who
will take the trouble to compare the diff.
ferent sections of the bill with the clauses
in the Constitution to which we will
refer.
In the first place the bill is deficient in
its title. Article ", Section II, Of the
Constitution says: Each law enacted by
the Legislature shall embrace but one
subject, and matter properly connected
Herewith, which subject shall be briefly
expressed in it's title" The title of the
bill in question is as follows: San Act
to redistrict the State of Nevada. pre-
scribe the number and salaries Of District
Judges, and fix the places Of holding
court" There should have been added
to this, to make it conform to the above
quoted Constitutional clause, the follow.
ing: prescribe for the mode of electing,
fix the terms of office, prescribe their
powers, duties and Jurisdiction, and fix
the places of abode of said Judges" All
of which comprise a portion of the "sub-
ject of the bill as plainly as does any
division expressed in the title. This will
be made apparent to any person who will
take the pains to read the Act as it
stands upon the Statutes.
Section l of the Act attempts to divide
the State into one district. Webster and
Bowler both define a district as a portion
OF a State or city set apart for legislative,
Judicial or elective purposes. The Con-
stitution provides that the State shall be
divided into Judicial Districts. When
it is consolidated into one is it so
"divided!" If it is, it is by a system
Of arithmetic not in vogue in our school
boy days. The Constitution, moreover,
invariably speaks of Judicial Districts.
Article VI, Sections l, sic, 7 and s,
Article VII, Sections Is, Is and II all
speak OF District Courts, always in the
plural and never in the singular. The
Constitution gives no power to the Legis-
lature to wipe out all Judicial Districts
and make one out of the whole State.
Article vi. Section s, it is true, gives
power to "provide by law for an altera.
tion in the boundaries or divisions Of the
districts herein prescribed" Not districts
thereafter prescribed by law, and the
restraint applies with equal force to the
other clause in the Section, to wit: Sand
also for the increasing and diminishing
Of the number of Judicial Districts and
Judges therein" What Judicial Dis
tricts and what Judges? Plainly the
ones herein prescribed. By the language
Of the Constitution. only one change was
contemplated, and that wa q reduction
in the first districts.
Section of the Act is unconstitutional
for the reason that there are no Judicial
Districts for the Judges to preside over.
A State is not . district, because it is a
whole State. Webster and Bowler again.
Section 8 makes the election Of Dis.
triot judges depend upon the votes of
the qualified electors of the State. A
State is not q Judicial District con.
sidesed Ia State Judicial affairs. There
fore the qualified electors of q State can
not elect District Judges. See Article
vi, Section 5, State Constitution.
Section 2 is Cons~titutionally defective,
because: lst, II defines the powers,
duties and jurisdiction Of the District
Judges; I'd. 1t determines the length Of
their official terms; Sd. 1t confers
powers, duties and jurisdiction upon
them which can be exercised by the Con.