The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1916-10-20
Lamm Against
Aid to Farmers

holder in his opposition to the Gard
ner Land Bank Bill.
He's "agin" the bill, right or
wrong.
But Judge Lamm, eminent jurist,
should be fair, at least fair to the
| farmers whose interests the bill seeks
| to serve.
| Candidate Lamm takes illegal" po-
sition that Jurist Lamm would not
dare to take.
He asserts that when the proposed
constitutional amendment, authoriz-
ing the creation of the bank, is adopt
ed, the law passed by the last Legis-
lature cannot in any way be changed
without submitting the change to a
vote of the people. This is contra
dicted by the proposed amendment it
self. Section l of the amendment
reads:>
"Section1. The General Assembly
is hereby empowered to enact spe-
cial law to create>a corporation to be
known as the Missouri State Land
Bank, with power to make loans on
notes secured by deeds of trust or
mortgages upon agricultural lands,
and to issue debenture bonds against
the same with all suitable and Incl
dental powers. And to enact other
special laws at the same session or
at other sessions Of the General AS
sembly to amend and improve the
said act. or to supply omissions or cor
rect errors or defects therein"
When this amendment is adopted
by the people it will become part of
the constitution of the State.
Then the constitution will specifi-
cally authorize the Legislature to
amend and improve the bill, to sup
ply omissions and correct errors or
defects therein.
Judge Lamm evidently had not read
the amendment when he made this
objection to the bill. 1t does not re-
nuire the learning of Supreme
Judge or a lawyer to interpret this
amendment. A child can understand
it.
Judge Lamm's opinions, when he
was on the Supreme bench, were not
always regarded as sound by his col
leagues. One instance is sufficient to
impress this fact. Attention is called
to the case of the State ex rel Scott
VS.. Dirckx, which will be found in
J Supreme Court reports, Vol. 211, page
568. This case was upon the con-
struction of an amendment to the con-
stitution, adopted in 1906 and chang
ing the tenure of office of sheriff from
two to four years. Judge Lamm was
on one side and the other six honored
members of the same bench were on
the opposite side. Judge Lamm pre-
pared an elaborate and many page
dissenting opinion which was uncon-
vincing, as the other six judges were
unanimously of contrary opinion and
overruled him. Before Judge Lamm
sets up as the sole keeper and infalli-
, BILE interpreter of the constitution he
might review this case. An examin-
alton of this case by the public will
not enhance his reputation as judge
in the eyes of the readers.
| AS stated, Judge Lamm stood alone
; in the dissenting opinion, six of his
, learned colleagues, Judges James B
CAN'T. Chief Justice; Gavon d. Bur
CESS, Leroy B. Valiant, jones D. Fox
Waller M. Graves and Archelaus M
! Woodson.
And it may appear, perhaps. lit
) tie strange chat Herbert S. Hadley
+ represented the side Judge Lamm ia
!. vored in his dissenting opinion!
! 1t would seem that there is a pos
: sibility that Judge Lamm may err
t in a "real legal" opinicn--then how
: much reliance may be placed in 8
; "purely political" opinion?
: If the constitution of yesterday de
:, clares that a certain thing shall mo-
= be done and the Constitution being
:, amended today declares that it may be
Z done, will Judge Lamm undertake t.
S say that the supreme power of the
people cannot so provide? Is Judge
/; Lamm familiar with Article 2, Section
h 2 of the constitution, which reads al
: follows:
S "Section 2. That the people of thi'
State have the inherent, sole and ex
j. elusive right to regulate the interna
: government and police thereof, ant
e to alter and abolish their constitu
s ton"
: Judge Lamm spends much time il
: endeavoring to demonstrate that TIL
e Gardner Land Bank Bill is in con
/ fict with Article ~, Section rs of tn
e existing State constitution. Even i
S the Judge were right in his construc
e ton of the present constitution, hi
= contention would be utterly and alb
It solutely immaterial because tn
: amendment to the constitution nov
8 submitted to the people and whicl
# will be adopted, grants every power t
Il the Legislature. However, any goo
lawyer reading the case of Attorney
d General VS.. Lincoln Trust Co., 144 Nc
" 562, will see at glance that the pres
n ent constitutional provision only ap
a plies to bank of issue. A Land Ban
is not bank of issue but bank tina
merely loans money, hence the Judge
long-winded argument gets him no
q where.
e The fact is that it is as plain a
i noon-day that the Judge is simpl
n seeking to conceal and justify his op
/ position to any kind of bill which wi
Is give farmers cheap money by gettin
1 behind a mass of legal technicalitie
!. which will not bear examination.
v The whole controversy may be sun
l. married. in sentence: Gardner
\ for q land hank. AMIN ic AGAINST