St. Tammany farmer. [volume] (Covington, La.) 1874-current, 1902-11-01
Constitutional Amend
mentS.

1
be held OIL the fourth day of The
coming month there are important
questions TO be decided beside the
selection of Congressman TO repre-
sent the State in the next Congress.
Important amendments to the Con.
slitu,ion of the State were submit.
ted at the last session of the Legis
lature to the people of the State
for ratification, and these amend.
ments are to be voted on at the
same time as the Congressman.
The most important of these
amendments relate TO the poll tar
prerequisites to voting ana to the
powers of the Supreme Court and
the Courts of Appeal.
1t is said that there has been j
strong demand for the repeal Of
the poll tax provision of the Con-
st1tution in the country parishes,
where 1t Is believed that the re-
quirement that voter shall have
paid his poll tax for the two years
preceding the election will place
the political management of the
parishes wholly within the power
of the sheriffs. 1t will be noticed
that this claim is made and that
that the attemp, is put forward to
change the existing law before
there has been. any chance to ties,
the requirement. The friends of
the proposed amendment claim,
however, that Caddo and Orleans
alone of all the parishes OF the
State will vote against The amend
ment. This amendment has been
discussed by The Times Democrat
frequently of late, and it has been
shown that there is no reason to be-
Ileve that the provision IN the Con-
stitution requiring the payment of
the tax will not do precisely what
it was claimed ii would do; that
is, place the ballet III the hands of
those who have "a stake Ill the
community" and who place some
value on the voting privilege. The
man who will not pay his poll tax
for the privilege OF voting has not
a very grave interest in the settle.
ment of political matters, and if
he chooses to d,sfranchise himself,
that Is his own concern. The con.
stilutional provision should at least
stand until it has had a fair trial.
The proposed amendment to arti
cles s., SO, 90, 100, lO5 and l3l
Of the Constitution relative to the
judiciary department should re-
ceive the vote of no thinking man.
If for no other reason, the pro
posed amendment should be de-
fealed because the judiciary sys-
tenn OF the State is much too ex-
as 1t is now organized, and
the amendment proposes to add six
Judges, with salaries agyregatlng
1874, 200, to the already excessive
judicial expenses of the State.
These six judges. moreover, are to
be appointed by the Governor,
who has now more patronage to
than any Governor in
he country. In these two respects
Alone proposed amendment Is inhe-
'ently bad. The Constitution of
l88a provides for Courts Of Ap-
peal for tho country parishes with
>ut any expense to the taxpayers.
he court to be composed of district
Judges, TO be selected By the Su.
creme Court. which would have no
;rouble in fixing upon men wh ose
Jurisdiction Is so limited and whose
,erritory so small that they could
rave afforded to give the ma or
part Of their time to appellate bust
,ess. The amendment is objection
lble also i'll that 1t limits appeal to
he Supreme Court to case, involv-
ng no, less than $4,000. This was
lone on the claim that the Supreme
Court If the State was behind with
is docket, and that this limiting
If cases would permit It to catch
Up with Its cases; but In reality it
would serve no such purpose, for
he reason that the Supreme Court
. not behind on its docket of coun-
,ry cases, and it is in the country
circuit where It is proposed to ap-
point the additional judges; there
6 the reason. moreover, that
though cases involving less than
$4,000 can not be taken before the
Supreme Court on appeal, if the
be adopted, all cases
more than $1,000 can be
taken up on a writ of review. The
congestion of the Supreme
Court docket would be in no man
aer relieved by the proposed
which would serve the
purpose alone of providing bullets
Tor half dozen polltioal lawyers.
Democrat.
The Felicianas throws out the follow