The Caldwell watchman. (Columbia, La.) 1885-1946, 1915-07-02
Opposes the Convention

| have read with a great deal Of
satisfaction, your several editorials or
the question of the constitutional con.
Ventlon, and since your views accoru
with my own on the question from be-
ginning to end, there can be no chance
OF difference between us as the cam.
palgn progresses There ara other
matters in connection with question OF
a constitutional convention, which |
think ought to be brought to the at
tentlon of the people. That there viii
be heroic effort made in that conycn-
ton to increase the taxes and pile m
more expenses for the people to pay is
foreshadowed in a report which the
State Probe Commission will make TO
the convention regarding the judiciary
of the state. That report will recon-
mend that the membership OF the Su-
preme Court be increased from five 10
seven judges at salary Of not less
than $4,000 each, per annum. create q
court of Criminal Appeals to be com
posed of three judges at salary OF
$4,000 each; continue the present Court
of Appeals COMPOSED Of three Judges
in each circuiS@J salary of $1,000
each; redistrict the state and have
two Judges in each district at 9 salary
OF $4,000; create court Of Domestic
Relations in the parishoI Orleans win
two judges at a salary OF $1,000 each
in the place Of the present juvenile
court with one judge. Have dis
trict attorney for each judicial district
at salary of $1,000 ana an additional
$1,000 for office expenses, together
with fees as now provided by law HE
constitution of 1898 CART. so provides
that the judges shall receive a yearly
salary of NOT LESS THAN 5000, but
it does not put any upper hmiC on
these salaries, SO for all that the tax
payers know, these judges may be
drawing ten thousand dollars per year
And if the proposed new constitution
al convention should adopt the sugges-
ton of the State Probe Commission,
the tax payers will still not know
what salaries they are paying their
Supreme Court Judges.
Now, let's make few calculations,
if our supreme judges are only draw
ing the minimum salary Of 5000 each,
then the tax payers are putting up
$500 per year Tor the five supreme
judges, but if the number IS increased
from five to seven, and they Continue
to draw the minimum salary OF 45JJ9|
per year, the tax payers viii pay -,
500 per year but il the five pr-55av
judges are drawing $500 each, pagI
year, then the tax payers are paying
$4,000 for the support Of this court, ana
in the event Of the increase Of the
membership to judges, the tax pay
ers will then pay $1,000 per year for
the support of this court.
If court of Criminal Appeals is ere
ated with three judges at salary OF /
not less than $4,000 each per year, tlen |
he tax will have at least $1,000 more I
more per year to pay, but they viii
lever know how much more than that
hey will pay. If the trainers Of the
of 1898 and those who are
% frame the constitution of 1915 want
% deal honestly with the people, why |
lid they not, and why do they not say
that these judges shall receive a sal
ary OF $4,000 per annum, instead OF say |
ng, mot less than S6O0j. Under !
The present constitution, there are 50 |
district courts out side of New Or
cans, and three of them have two
Judges each, at a salary Of $1,000 each, |
which. aggregates $1,000 per year that
the tax payers are paying each year
for the district judges In the STATE,
but if you double the number OF judy |
IS as is proposed by the State Probe |
Commission, then the tax payers VIII |
pay.$198000 per year for the support of |
district judges; but, says somebody, |
the number of districts may be reduc-
ed-not much chance of that ii you
send the present district judges as del |
egates to the convention.
The present Court OF Appeals is com
posed of two circuits, exclusive OF the |
Parish of Orleans, at salary OF $lVU0t
each, per annum, hence we are now
six judges OF this court at |
a yearly expense of $4,000. Ii the |
recommendations Of the State Probe
Commission should be adopted by the
there will be thirty Dis
trict Attorneys to pay at an expense
Of $4,000 each per year, aggregatng
sixty thousand dollars. In addition to
this, the Probe Commission recon-
mends that the clerk Of the Supreme
Court be paid salary of $4,000.
Now, under the present conditions, |
we know that we pay our supreme |
judges $4,000 at least,w we know that |
we pay our district judges $4,000 per
year, we know we pay our judges of I
the Court of Appeals $4,000 per year, |
and that we pay our District Attor-
neys $4,000 per year, making a grand !
total of SITS, 900 per year for the sup
port of our Judiciary system, but if !
the recommendations of the State |
Probe Commission should be adop ed, |
we know we will pay our supreme iud-
ges S35, 900 per year, our court OF Grim |
nal Appeals SIS, 900, our District Judg-
es $198, 900, our judges of the Court (
Of Appeals $4,000 and our District !
Attorneys $50, 600, and our clerk Of /
the Supreme Court $1,000, making d |
grand total of 1897, 900 per year against /
S175, 900 at present and difference OF
$780, 900. In these calculations, | /
have not included the salaries of the
district judges of the Parish of Orleans,
nor of the judges of the Court of APP |
nnols 60. tbot narieb my nf tha ipdro