The leader., 1899-12-06
THE LAWYERS DIFFER
Concerning the Adoption of the
Amendment for an Elect
i've Judiciary.

Election or Not That is the Question.
Eminent lawyers of the State ar,
much divided on this important ques
ton. though the weight of legal author
ity, thus far expressed, seems to be il
favor of the negative. Gov. McLaurin
Senator, Noel, Senator W. II. Hardy
Hon. Leroy Percy and others. hold thai
the amendment carried; FIX Chief Jus
tice J. a. F. Campbell, Gov Elect Lon
gino, Elk Attorney General Frank John
son, Hon. Il. II. Thompson and Others
hold the contrary view. The editor o.
the Greenwood Commonwealth has
been soliciting and publishing express
sions of opinion on the subject from
the most prominent lawyers of tn,
State, which will add greatly tOwarC
reaching a satisfactory conclusion O
the matter
From those so far published, we Sc
lect and present below the opposit,
opinions expressed by Senator Noel
author of the amendment, and Elk Chic
Justice Campbell.
SENATOR NoEL's OPINION.
The elective judiciary amendment
passed each branch of the legislature
on three separate days, after thorough
discussion, by majorities of about ) t.
/. 1t received u .16O direct votes in it,
favor to 8,643 against, carrying 81 o
the - counties. The advocates of The
appointive system, aided 10y the plat
form and candidates of the Populis
party, polled but 2,222 more votes thar
did the Populist gubernatOrial caudi
date, DIR. Prewitt. who canvassed Mis-
sissippi, against the elective judiciar!
amendment and democracy.
After an amendment passes the leg
islature, Sec. 213 of our constitution re
quires that it shall be finally settled a
IAN election at which the QUALIFIED
electors shall vote directly for o
against such -. amendment; =.
and if it shall appear that a maiorit.
of the qualified electors voting shall
have voted for the proposed
amendment, then it shall be inserted
by the next preceding legislature as
part of the Constitution. and not 9th
erWise."
The term qualified electors voting
naturally means those who shall Iii
rectly vote for or against such
amendment" above referred to. in TIN
same sentence. 1t cannot be reason
ably held otherwise. except by isolat
ing the last clause of that sentence an,
straining the words of that isolated
part to the accomplishment of desir
ed purpose.
1t is almost absurd to contend, Wher
it is not otherwise unequivocally pro
vided. that the votes cast for one otlic
or measure should control the vote cas-
on wholly different question. espec
tally where the provisions controllin!
the election on that very question re
quires that the qualified electors shall
vote directly for or against such
amendment"
The argument that a majority o
votes cast directly for or against al
amendment should not be decisive be
cause. possibly, only one or two vote
might be cast, applies to every question
that is submitted to the people for I
decision, at an election. 1t is possible
that there should be three candidate.
for district attorney, and that ont
should receive three votes. while tn,
other two received two votes each. anC
the man with the three votes should ht
elected Such remote possibilities dc
not control the making of laws or con
stitutions. Those who stay away from
the polls, or go there and fail to vOt,
upon the various questions submitted
confer their rights upon question
which they do not act on those who d,
act and vote. Such is the almost uni
versal law.
JUDGE CAMPBELL's OPINION.