The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1914-09-12
Contradictory Judicial Amendments.

NohttduICtoly Suuicidf amendments
New Orleans Times ricayune.l
We have received the follow
ing inquiry from subscriber:
New Orleans, La, Sept. l. 1914.
Editor Of the Times-P icayune:
Dear Sir-For the information of the
electors of the State, please explain
the necessity of both Act No. 1877 (Sen-
ate Bill No. 60) and Act No. 257 House
BID No. 5l3) as set forth on pas e IL of
your issue of this date. Why could
not one act have been made to cover
the entire ground and obviated the
seeming necessity of choice between
the two? Should not the members of
the legislature have been in better
position 10 determine? Thanking you
IN advance, etc, very truly yours,
SUBSCRIBER.
There is no reason for these
two acts and amendments. They
are due to stupid blunder of
the legislature. The Times-Pic-
ayune practically answered this
question in advance in an editor
ial of Aug. %. in which we adj
vised the voters to defeat both
measures Subscriber" refers to,
and which figure as Nos. Z and
IL among the constitutional
amendments, as published by
Secretary of State Hebert. They
are on the same subject, but in
conflict, and illustrate the care
less methods of the legislature.
The best way to cure the conflict
or mistake is to vote down both
amendments, and send the mat
ter back to the legislature.
Amendment No. Z (Act No.
1877 was introduced in the SEN
ate by Senator We'll, to provide
for an extra judge in his district
1.-THE thirteenth), which includes
Rapides and Grant. Being pop
ular, he got it through the SEN
ate and finally through the House,
and it is now before the people
for their judgment.
In the meanwhile, Mr.. Fleury,
of Jefferson, in the other house
was doing the same thing as SEN
ator We'll, working for an extra
judge in the Jefferson district.
This slipped through the House
and then through the Senate, and
is now before the voters. For
this office in prospect candidate
has already been named, although
the amendment has not been ap-
proved by the voters; and,
strange to say, Mr.. Fleury him.
self, the legislator who introduc-
ed the bill proposing the new
judgeship, has been nominated
for that office. There may be a
legal question as to his eligibility. |
Thus the amendment creating
this court will have to go to 9TH
err courts for determination and |
Interpretation as to its meaning, |
should it be adopted. There are
other legal objections to both |
amendments which will probably |
throw them into litigation. The
people will be voting for a law
suit. = x ~
The two amendments, Nos. a
and IL. are in conflict, and, if
both are adopted, the fact is |
likely to cause some confusion.
They were both approved on the
same date, July 9, so there may
be some question of priority; but
No. 13 would seem to be the last
one. The first amendment pro-
vides for one additional judge;
the second provides for that Judge
a second time and also for three
other judges.
No. z requires that the two
judges from the fifteenth and
the two from the twenty-frst
districts shall not be chosen from
the same parish, thus prohibiting
a big parish from hogging every
thing. This provision is omitted
from the other amendment (No.