The Magnolia gazette. [volume] (Magnolia, Miss.) 1872-current, 1899-06-07
ELECTIVE JUDICIARY.
SENATOR NOEL, AUTHOR or THE
RESOLUTION, DEFENDS THE PRO-
POSED AMENDMENT.
Reply to Criticisms Of the Jack
son Clarion Ledger.

Editor Clarion Ledger; Your
issue of 9th inst. contains a crit
icism Of the pending constitution
al amendment, relating to elec-
tive judiciary. You present OBJ
jectionsand generously open your
columns for response. AS the
author of that amendment, avail
myself of your kind invitation.
All that its friends ask is a fair
opportunity Of meeting, before the
people, whatever objections may
be urged.
The proposed amendment, in
brief, makes all judges and chan
cellors elective, fixing terms Of
supreme judges at eight, and 9th.
ers at four years, leaving to leg
islative determination, as is now
the case with other elective offices,
the filling of unexpired terms,
and also the fixing of the date Of
judicial elections; and requiring
it to provide for party nominations
of judges by districts. All are
to be elected, as far as practica-
BILE, in the same manner as are
governors; and, except, in the
elections to fill vacancies, as
nearly one half OF supreme
judges as IS practicable are to be
chosen at each judicial election,
which practicability means, and
can only mean, one at one cleo
ton and two at The next. or vice
versa. The terms of all circuit
judges and chancellors can be
ended, as provided, when the
legislature puts the amendment
into operation, or at any future
date it may determine. The
present supreme judges are to
serro out their appointed terms.
Thejr .1ccessors are, of course,
TO be chosen at the judicial cleo
tion preceding the expiration of
their respective terms. judicial
ele tions are to be held every four
years, at the same time with the
state, or either of the federal
elections or at a different time, as
the legislature may determine,
This is the only reasonable con-
struction, and is the one | gave
when, seeking suggestions,
submitted the amendment to the
governor, supreme judges and the
maj ajority of the legislators before
its adoption, when, by speech or
silence, they concurred in that
construction. Nearly all, if not
all, the objections now being urg-
ed, were afterwards raised by
those who, in reality, oppose the
elective principle; and would OPP
pose it, whatever form it might
take. A large majority of the
people favor electing judges,
am sure, There can be no reas-
enable expectation of its defeat,
except by getting votes from its
friends by dividing them up over
details. Its advocates are called
on to meet its enemies on this in
sidious line. These enemies,
while comprising some excellent
men who entertain a lower esti-
mate Of the honesty and common
sense of a majority of voters wher
directed to the selection Of judges
for whose shortcomings they
must suffer, than that of one OIL
their own number who happens
to be governor, also embrace
practically all those who side with
corporations and capital, al
against the people in political is'
. sues, and want judiciary wide
| ly removed from the masses. il
sympathy and in responsibility
and likewise include those poll
ticians who have more confidence
in their ability to obtain Office
from one man, than from thr
whole people. These classes ar,
not open to conviction, nor will,
ing, as you are, to present anC
consider both sides.
Coming to the objections, thu
: chief one, that different amend
ments are embodied in one, wa
passed on recently in Louisiana
, and two other states, having con
} stitutional requirements simila
to ours, and was ovetruled. Par
of those litigated amendment
} embraced questions and office
, much more numerous and divers
3 than the one we are now consid
ering, as reading Of those case
win attest. All the courts hel,