The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-02-14

the legislature. As evidenced in Sat.
urday's debate in the Senate, many OF
the members of that body are of the
opinion that they are not called upon to
vote for a redistricting of the state, simp-
lly to comply with a campaign promise
| of Governor Culberson. The members OF
the Senate argue that when necessity de-
mands it that there are none more VIII
ing than themselves to vote for re-
ldistricting, but until that necessity arises
they are most bitterly opposed to II,
Their reasons are many, but Jew VIII
suffice. They argue that the districts
as they are now laid out are intended as
| far as possible to suffice for the future
with its constantly growing business.
That no demand for a redistricting has
been made by the legal fraternity, nor
the various district judges and attorneys.
That to cut down the district courts
only means a crOwding OF dockets, haSty
and i'll advised opinions that will be re-
verscd in the higher courts, confusion
of everything and great additional eX-
pcnses. They also argue that the pro-
motors of this scheme claim that it will
reduce the expenses of the government
for the next two years. The gentlemen
argue that it would be impossible to re-
they can not possibly see how it is going
to help the financial end of the business
in that time. Another problem that these
Misunderstanding men have for the others
to solve is this: In redistriCting the state
suppose that two districts are merged
into one then which one of the judges
shall hold his Office? 1t is claimed under
the constitution that the legislature has
no right to take Il mans Office away from
him after he has once been legally elected
TO 1t. When this condition cOnfrOntS the
legislature, they are in Il quandary and
well they may be. The members who op-
pose the redistrcting question say that
if it must be DONE that the only way to
do it is by having a constitutional con
vcntion, redistrict the state and then
order Il general election to settle the
whole matter as TO who shall be Judges.
They claim that should the rcdistricting
be done, that it should be done by n CON
stitutiOnal convention and not by the
legislature. That the legislature would not
have the legal right TO bounce these
Judges until their term of office expired,
and that to do so would simply produce
litigation for the state. They argue fur
thcr that the constitution REQUIRES the
holding of two terms of court in each
''''''' ''''''6 ''''i D'dI anu III 'uSt YOU
lump II large number of counties together
how is this TO be done? They claim fur
thcr that this whole matter has arisen
from a mere breath and is not in any
respect OccasiOncd by Il tidal wave of pub
nc clamor as so many would have us be-
Iicvc. They argue that the creation of
many new and wholly unnecessary coun-
ties out west has occasiOned all this row
by forcing the creation of new judicial
districts In these thinly settled cOun-
lies, however, the judge, if he is not
II court, is trying his best to ride fast
'nOugh 10 get to his court in time to
lold session. In other words, as soon
Is he finishes his court in one county he
S forced to make all haste to cover the
ong distance between that and the court
n the other county. 1t is contendcd that
.hcse judges do not sit half their allotted
line on the bench, but this argument is
net by the assertion that it is well
Known fact that lawyers are continually
rying to postpone cases and that the
business transacted by IL court is no cri-
erion of what is on its docket.
Those favoring the movement contend
hat redistricting is necessary and it is
o the pccuniary interest of the state.
That many of the more thinly settled dis
riots of the state should be consolidated
md that such consolidation would not in
my way work Il hardship on the judges.