The Marietta journal. (Marietta, Ga.) 1918-1944, 1919-01-10

state demonstrates this to be true, and
that it was the intention of the law
makers to create thirteen and not
seven new districts; it is true that
the Act only provides for seven ad
ditional districts, but in the creation
of these seven additional districts
(Which are also new districts) it was
found to be necessary to abolish six
of the old districts and also to create
six other (but not additionally new
districts.
Now, what is the language of the
Act? Section No. 8, subsection (a)
reads as follows: @
"By striking all of sub-sections Is,
27, 80, "a, 35 and &c."
When the people voted to ratify
this subsection of the amendment to
the constitution, the six districts nam
ed in said subsection were abolished !;
the same electors who voted to es-
tablish the seven additional districts
also voted to abolish six of the old
districts; if one part Of the Act was
ratified, it was all ratified, because
it was voted upon as whole and
not by sections; if the old districts
were not abolished, the seven add
tional and new districts were not
created.
Also, the language of subsection
! (b) of Section No. 3, of the said
Act reads as follows:
"By substituting in lieu of the sub
sections so stricken out new sub-sec-
tions Is, 27, 80, "a, IS and 80, re-
spectively as follows: (giving the
counties which shall compose the new
districts created in lieu of the six
old districts created in lieu of the
six old districts abolished)."
And said Act adds the following:
"39. The Thirty-ninth Senatorial
District shall be composed of the
counties of Cherokee, Cobb and
Douglas"
Now, what can be palmer than this
language? The Act provides that
six old districts be abolished, and
then, after they are abolished, pro-
vides that six new districts be created,
and among these is the 39th; and to
show that there could be no mistake
about the intention of the lawmakers
the Act calls them the new" 10Th,
9th, 3Oth, 34th, 35th and seth.
In creating the new seth, Cobb
was taken from the old 35th, Doug
las from the old 36th, and Cherokee
from the old 39th, after these three
districts were abolished, and new
district created to be called the 39th.
l am sure that no lawyer will deny
the fact that when subsection Ia
of Section No. 3, of the Act, was
ratified, it forever abolished the SIX
districts named in said subsection
and that when subsection (b) OF
Section No. 3 of the Act was rati-
fed, it created the six districts named
! in said ub-section-now, were these
six districts thus created new!
They had never existed before; they
were different from any district that
ever existed before; they are DIS
tinguished from the old, while named
(numbered) after them; in my opln-
ion, it is "just as plain as the alpha
bet" that they are new districts.
am sure that no one would con-
tend for a moment that the number
bv which a district is called decides
the question of whether it is new
or an old district; take it for granted
that the question at issue is whether
or not the district is new or old, and
not the number by which it is deslg-
mated. 1t is a fact that the SIX
districts abolished and the six created
in lieu thereof bear the same numbers
but take it for granted that no
man will insist that any numbers
were either abolished or created; II
there have been any old numbers
abolished or any new numbers ere
ated by any individual, body corpor,
ate, or state during the last few cen
turtles, it has not been brought te
nv notice-it is a question OF old OF
new districts - not numbers. TINS
also holds true of the seven addition
al and new districts which were Great
ed when the amendment to the con-
i Continued on page nine)