Telegram-herald., 1891-04-11

what is may expect IN the line OF
"squawbuck" legislation from the
Democratic Legislature Of 1891. The
"hawbuek' Legislation. in its efforts 10
meet the demands Of the State. under
the numerous limitations Of the eonsti-
tuition, honestly ran sfoui Of some con-
stltutlonal snags and their legislation
was, in several instances, Get aside by
the supreme Court The "squawback"
legislature is realizing tina same diff
eulties as its predecessor, but has
started out on course of deliberately
lodging constitutional provisions.
How successful they may be, remains
To be seen.
The House Committee on Judiciary
yesterday reported . substitute for
Representative Miners bill for the re-
lief OF the Supreme Court, by the APP
pointment OF stenographers for the
judges. The bill as originally intro
duced provided for the appointment,
by each of the justices. of ''stenogra-
pher or clerk to assist him in the per-
Torrance of such clerical work in con-
| nection with his office as he may deem
expedient." But this was in open de-
fiance Of the last clause OF section 10,
OF article 6. OF the constitution, prohib-
iting the judges from exercising ''the
power of appointment to public Office"
except as provided in such section. So
the committee of lawyers whipped the
devil around the stump" by providing
that the appointment shall be made by
'the Supreme Court" and that the APP
pointees shall be known as "stenogra-
piers or copyists." This is supposed to
obyiate the constitutional objection,
but how the court can make the APP
pointment without the judges, who
compose the court, exercising "the
power of appointment to public Office"
is something that no ono but "squaw-
buck" legislator can understand. The
Supreme Court consists Of ga chief JUS
tice and four associate Justices" and
when the court acts those justices act.
They necessarily act as justices when
the court acts or else the court, which
they compose, does not act.
There is another brilliant provision in
tho bill. Section 8 provides that, be-
fore entering upon their duties. these
"stenogaphers or copyists" shall take
and subscribe the following oath Of
Office: az, -, do solemnly swear
that will support the constitution of
the United States, and the constitution
Of this State. That l will faithfully
preserve and keep inviolate all conf
dences reposed IN me as stenographer
or copyist OF the Supreme court and of
the justices thereof, and that will Dot
dlvulge to anyone, any fact or inform
alton that may come to my knowledge
concerning any Of the consultations,
discussions, conclusions, opinions, de-
cisions, or other business of the Sa-
preme court or of any of the justices
thereof. Nor will l commun icate to
any one the state Of the deliberations
of said justices or the decision they OF
any of them have arrived at; and / will
faithfully perform the duties of the
Office to which have been appointed.
So help me God" But section one of
article IS Of the constitution prescribes
this form of official oath: al do
solemnly swear Tor afirm) that l will
support the constitution of the United
States and the constitution of this State,
and that will faithfully discharge the
duties of the Office OF - according to
the best of my ability" Then follows
this declaration: "And no other oath,
declaration, or test shall be required as
qualification for any Office or public
trust" But the committee of "squaw-
buck" lawyers do not consider the oath
"a qualification" for Office. But the
use of the word "other" IN the decIara-
ton of the constitution shows that the
oath of Office is considered a qualifi-
cation, and everybody we'll knows that
an official has never qualified" for his
Office until he has taken and subscribed
his official oath.
But this legislation is intended for the
benefit of the Supreme Court. Would
that honorable body sanction this eva
sion of the constitution Or would the
court have the stamina necessary to set
the act aside? II such an act would not
infringe those provisions Of the consti-
tuition literally, it certainly would "by
necessary implication"
| But II is claimed that these stenog.
rsphers are necessary; that they should
be the confidential appointees of the
court and that they should be sworn TO
secrecy. IL all this is not absolutely
necessary. it is at least desirable for the
relief of the Supreme Court. Here,
then, is striking illustration of how
difficult il is TO enact some necessary or
desirable legislation, without meeting
some constitutional objection. The
"hswbuck" Legislature did the best il
could and made some mistakes The
"squavbuck" legislature proposes to
deal in evasions. Which is the better
practice7
ADJOURNMENT.