The Louisiana populist., 1897-12-10
Not Constitutional! Nor Eight

All over the State persons are
offering themselves as delegates to
the Constitutional convention,
when they already hold Offices Of
emolument and profit. The ques-
tion is therefore pertinent as to
whether under the law they are
not dobarred as delegates, unless
they resign the positions they al
ready hold. Article 1855 Of the
present nstitution provides, that,
mo person shall bold or exercise
at the same time, more than one
Office of trust or profit, except
that of justice of the peace or no.
tary public" This language is
plain and unequivocal, and thore is
absolutely no warrant or sanction
of the views expressed by self-in-
terested parties, that ''electing a
delegate to this convention does
not vacate the office he holds at
the time Of his election" The
law provides that ''no person"
shall hold two Offices of trust and
profit at the same time. 1t is
right and eminently proper that
the law should contain this provis-
ion. The following communica-
ton, found in an esteemed contem-
porary, covers the ground SO com
pletely, and accords with our views
so perfectly, that we publish it in
this connection, viz:
EDITOR MANSFIELD JOURNAL:
A great deal has been said in the
papers about the legality Of the
election of a person to the CON
stitutional convention who already
holds an Office of profit and trust.
The true question is not as to the
legality of the election of such Of
ficer, but whether by qualifying
as a member Of the constitutional
convention such officer would not
forfeit the first Office and, under
the unambiguons emphatic pro
visions of the present constitution,
| it would seem clear that such for
feiture would result ipso facto from
the induction into the second Of
flee. But after all, the proper
Iquestion is not so much as to tho
legality and constitutionality of it
but as to the sound public policy
of it. How can Office holders bt
trusted to Iegislato against them
selves, even though the proposed
legislation be absolutely necessary
to the public good! Suppose it ii
q questition Of aholishing an Office
can person holding such Office
be trusted to vote for its abolish
ment! Suppose it it a question o
decreasing the pay of an office
is it reasonable to suppose tina
such decrease will he favored b.
one who will be directly pinche'
by such decreasel And ther
would be tho same difficulty as t
shortening and limiting terms 0
Office. The Office holders in tn
, constitutional convention can b
trusted to look ont for themselvc
first and the people afterward; an
, to combine to prevent any legls
lation adverse to their interests.
< A cOnveation OF office holder
E aciU be a public calamity. A.
This correspondent strikes th
key note to the controversy. Tn
! office holders cannot be trusted
cut down their own salaries. The
cannot be trusted to insert in th
D constitution the wholesome meas
ures Of economy and retrenchmeu
: that the people desire in the Wa
of reduced salaries and fees pal
to officials. The chronic Office
seekers and Office. holders cannt
!, be trusted to insert q provisio
Y insuring the old-time Democrat
] rule "of rotation in Office" The
G cannot he trusted to provide thu
they shall step down and out at th
: end of one term Of Office, an
: await an intervening term befor
y they shall again offer themselvt
: for election. For these, and man
other weighty reasons that "
could give, it is not proper to ele'
Z office e-holders to the constitutions
Q convention. .--Colfax Chronicle.
VI When solicited to run for tt
d Constitutions Convention, Juds