The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1921-05-06

without fear of successful contradic-
ton, that the measures affected by the
referendum proposals, are in direct
violation Of the campaign pledges
made last year; nor is it necessary for
us to wait two years to ascertain their
cost, for the Legislature has made APP
preparations for the bureaus affected.
affording definite and accurate guide.
There is no attempt to "chain the
hands, and nullify the work of an adj
ministration. Only those administra-
tive measures have been touched,
which seriously involve the expendi-
lures of the State (which can be cited
in detail), or designed for the single
purpose Of creating a political machine
Of vast proportions, at public expense.
Moreover, we know that if these bills
ever become effective, with the sena-
torial gerrymander in effect, we can
not secure their repeal, whether they
be good or bad, except by political rev.
olution in Missouri. There is no good
reason why measures of this type
should not be submitted and await the
Judgment of the people as to their
specific provisions rather than judy
ment with reference to vague and gen
eral statements of policy, made in the
form of campaign pledges that are not
kept.
The measures affecting the revision
of the election laws, some of which
the Governor has declared to be essen
tial to his program. are not disturbed.
Measures relating to education are not
attacked; measures involving policies
of taxation, not adopted through leg
islation, can not be attacked through
the referendum. 1t is stretching
things very much to say that the ref
erendum is multiplying the administra-
ton program, unless it be that that
program can only be sustained by the
establishment Of an extravaganza gov
ernmental scheme, and the mainte-
nance of political machine.
If this be true, possibly it had bet
ter be nullified, or at least suspended
until the public may know all of the I
facts and the voters of the State have
an opportunity to express themselves.
1t is a source of regret that the
Globe-Democrat did not see fit, in ad-
vertising to this situation, to give its
Judgment as to the so-called judicial
redistricting measure, whereby Cir
cult Judges elected by a vote of the
people, for fixed tenure of office,
are removed by legislative act, before
the official terms had expired, vesting
in the Governor the doubtful power of
substituting persons of his own selec-
ton for judges chosen by the people.
May venture to ask the Globe
Democrat if it approves of this sort Of |
legislation? In this connection, may
call attention to the fact that no iu-
dicial reapportionment act in the his
tory Of Missouri ever undertook to ter
inmate the official tenure of Judges
elected by the people, allowing the
Governor to name their successors?
There have been instances in the his
tory of Missouri, in which the judicial
circuits have been re-arranged, in
stances in which two judges have been
thrown into one circuit, but there has
never been judicial reapportionment
act which disturbed the fixed tenure in
office of judges elected by the people.
In other words, these bills were usu-
ally made effective at the expiration of
the terms of the incumbents. What is
the result of this act? The Legisla-
ture undertakes to do, by an indirect
method, what it dared not attempt by
the Constitutional process of impeach-
ment, namely, remove judges from Of
fee by an act of the General .Assemb-
ly.
Fortunately, the Constitution pro-
tects the Supreme Court of the State
from similar assault to serve con-
partisan purposes. The Su-
preme Court membership is fixed at
seven, according to the Constitution.
If it were not for the Constitution, ap-
plying the same rule that prevailed
respecting the Circuit Judges. the
Legislature might reduce the number
of Supreme Judges from seven to five
and provide that all those now holding
office should be removed upon the /
date upon which the bill became effec-
tive, and authorizing the Governor to
appoint an entirely new Supreme
Court. Would the Globe Democrat en-
dorse an act of this kind? Certainly
not. What is the difference between
such an act, touching the tenure of the
Supreme Court and an act which abol- |
ishes the offices of the thirty-eight |