The Birmingham age-herald., 1910-11-23
NEW ELECTION LAW. MUCH CRITICISED
Mississippians Worry Over the
 Question of Validity
OPINIONS ARE VARIED
The Amendment to the Constitution Adopted in Mississippi for EIec- tion of Judges Has Aroused
 Some Discussion

Jackson, Miss, November 2o-(Spe- the proposed constitutional amendment providing for the election of judges and chancellors, recently adopted by the people of Mississippi In the general election for congressmen, is being gem orally discussed here and in many parts of the state. Legal and lay critics are arguing with each other, and while many eminent lawyers and expounders of the constitution boldly declare that the amendment was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of the constitution, others hold to the con- trary view.
 The objection raised to the validity of the amendment as already stated Is that it provides for the election of both the judges and chancellors, and that section 27S of the constitution as construed by the supreme court in the case of the state vs. Powell the judges should have been put in one amend ment and the chancellors In another In the Powell case several sections | of the constitution were amended or | incorporated Into one amendmnet. It provided for the election of three su- | preme judges by districts with terms | of eight years each and for the cleo | ton of judges and chancellors by dis | tricts. with terms of four years, etc Section 273 of the constitution Of 1890 provides that If more than one amendment shall be submitted at one time they shall be submitted in such manner and form that the people may | vote for or against each amendment | separately" The court held that the proposed amendment violated this section 273 and aruged that some voters might de- sire to elect supreme judges, while oth- CTS might favor appointing them, and some might "have chose to vote for the election of circuit judges and not for the election of chancellors and vice versa"
 The precise question as to whether 1 circuit Judges and ehancellors could | or could not be included in one amend- ment was not separately before the court, and while the court suggests | that they could not, the point was not emph hasized and was not separ- ately entered into, but came in under the general postulate that more than one amendment could not be incor- | porated together
 
 tended that the proposed amendment changes but one section of the con- stltution, section 153, which reads: "The | Judges of the circuit courts and of the chancery courts shall be appointed by | the governor. with the advice and con- | sent of the senate. and shall hold | their offices for the term of four years" The proposed amendment, 1t is urged, submits only one change in this section. | II tAmand secfion of ha | stitution so as to read as follows: "The | Judges of the circuit and chancery courts | shall be elected by the people in a man ner and at time to be provided by the legislature, and the judges shall hold their office for a term of four years" This proposed amendment, 1t is claimed by some, only submits to the voter the simple question as to the electing or ap- pointing the judges and chancellors. and not the question of electing or appoint Ing them separately. The single proposi- tion in the legislative mind was to amend section 153 in the matter of electing or ap- pointing the judges and chancellors. and not the one or the other
 There is very material distinction be- tween the present proposed amendment and the one that was before the court in State vs. Powell, on this point, which seems to have been overlooked in the gen. eral discussion. In State vs. Powell the amendment provided that the several sec tions to be changed should be "annulled, |" and the amendment provided to "strike out of the constitution" the sections re- lating to supreme judges, circuit judges and chancellors and their terms, etc. and inserted entire new provisions.
 In the present case the legislature sim ply proposes to amend section 153 of the constitution so as to read as follows" This would seem to clearly settle the point at issue as ito the submission of "more than one amendment" True, a voter might have desired to vote sepa- rately as to the election of judges and chancellors. but did the legislature sub init such a proposition to be voted on? Amendments to tho constitution must be submitted by the legislature. If a man did not favor the election of both, or either, he gratified his privilege by vot- ing against, or if he favored the cleo tive, as opposed to the appointive system. he voted for the proposed change, which was all he had right to vote on.
 But another question which might be raised as to the proposed amendment is the change of verbiage found in the last clause, which leaves out the word "chan- cellors," thus providing only that the Judges shall hold office for four years and making no provision for the term Of office of the chancellors. This might be construed as such change or altera- ton of section 153 as to constitute a sep arate amendment, inasmuch as its effect would be to let the legislature fix the terms of the chancellors. But in voting on that proposition 1t could be urged that the people simply reserved to themselves, through their representatives. the right to fix the terms of the chancellors.