their property for public use without compensation; (2) that the law is partial in its application, and not a general law; (3) that it deprives persons, accused, of a fair and impartial trial; (4) that it amends or repeals quite a number of former acts, but does not in its body or caption recite or refer to such acts." It ran the gauntlet.

Judge Wilkes, in delivering the opinion of the majority (four) of the court, clearly and succinctly disposes of each of the above objections. He cites a rich list of authorities in support of the court's position, and makes this opinion a treasure house for the student of Tennessee's constitutional law. He meets each argument with a stronger one. He answers our able ex-Govrenor's specious epigram as follows: "If the new law says in effect, 'Convict, and you shall be paid,' the old law says, 'Prosecute, and you shall be paid whether you convict or not.' In a happy paraphrase of the law, the court says: "The voice of this act is not, we think, one of temptation to bribery, but one of caution and warning. To officers and witnesses it utters salutary words. In effect it says: 'Beware that you do not set on foot frivolous, vexatious, or malicious prosecutions that burden the public with costs and oppress and annoy the citizen. The name and funds. of the state must not be used for this end. Bring only just and substantial and well-founded charges into courts, such as will not only secure a favorable judgment before the committing magistrate, but before the grand jury and before the trial jury. If you oppress and annoy the citizen with charges that are dismissed by the committing magistrate, or ignored by the grand jury, or dismissed without a trial, or cannot be sustained on a trial, then you lose your time and labor. The state and county will fail to pay you for the fruitless and oppressive business. An exception will be made, however, as to the acquittals of the eight principal felonies, as it is of great public concern that they should be prosecuted, and as they are seldom the subject of frivolous prosecution, and from their character cannot be." In conclusion, the court says: "We are

of opinion, therefore, that the act in question is free from constitutional objection."

The practical results of the bill are most gratifying to the taxpayers, who personally can see the great saving at each term of the court. Upon a fair estimate, it will save the people some $400,000 per annum.

The objection most frequently urged, and which will find many supporters before the next legislature is, that under its provisions, the officials in small counties "can't make a livin'." If there is not work enough there to give four men a good living, then the taxpayers are under no obligations to support them in idleness. If you retain a system which would give to each official in small counties sufficient compensation to pay the expenses of a hotly contested election, and have enough left to live on, then in the large counties the officials will have a campaign fund large enough to continue to debauch our voters and have a princely salary left. We must cut off some of the officers; let one man perform the duties of several of the present officials in small counties. Under our present constitution we cannot do this. We need a new constitution; but if we cannot get this, let each official in the small counties deputize his associates. In this way there would be need of but one official at the courthouse at a time, save in court week. The compensation will be sufficient for the time spent in the public's behalf.

We must be prepared to meet this point, or there will be a horde of officers from the small counties at Nashville in 1899, asking amendments to the law. The only portion of the law which has miscarried is the second exception to section 1, providing that costs shall be paid in "cases under the small offense law, where the defendant has submitted before a justice of the peace and been sent to the workhouse." It was believed that, as the defendant in such cases worked out his fine and costs, it was no hardship on the county to pay costs. Such is the truth where the submissions are voluntary and the officers are honest; but in the larger counties, dishonest and hungry justices of the peace are making considerable revenue out of this provision. In

many misdemeanor cases, it is proper that the defendant should be allowed to submit and work out his fine; it would be eminently unjust to deprive him of this right; but it is a travesty upon the law, that persons who have committed felonies, wherein the costs are not assured under the "Jarvis bill," should be not only advised, but practically compelled by officers and justices to submit to some such misdemeanor as assault and battery or malicious mischief, and be sent to the workhouse. However, we should hardly complain if only the guilty suffered; but under this practice, frivolous charges are trumped up against tramps, hobos, and many others unable to give bond; they are hustled off to the workhouse, while the county must pay their board. The remedy is, that the county judge, the financial agent of the county, should scrutinize every bill sent up, and have some of these justices of the peace prosecuted; and where the defendant has submitted where he was not guilty, or has submitted for an offense which was not committed, the county attorney should, by proper proceedings, bring the matter to the attention of the judge of the circuit court. The circuit judges are anxious to stop this evil; it only requires honest county judges with backbone; one successful prosecution of one officer or justice of the peace would stop this trouble. The chief complaint is of country justices who came to town to stir up business; they should be made to stay in their own districts; but this cannot be done under the present constitution; we must have a new

one.

Your committee recommends that statistics as to the practical working of the "Jarvis bill" be collected till the next meeting of the legislature, and that this body co-operate with the reform associations throughout the state, so that the bill may be properly defended against attack.

Your committee has this far lent its best efforts to the reform associations that have so successfully prosecuted this good work.

Respectfully submitted,

LEWIS M. COLEMAN,

Chairman.

The report was ordered to be received and filed and printed in the proceedings.

The report was discussed by Messrs. J. M. Anderson and J. H. Holman.

The report of the Committee to Agitate the Calling of a Constitutional Convention was then submitted. The report is as follows:

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO AGITATE THE CALLING OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CON

VENTION.

Hon. W. B. Swaney, President of the State Bar Association: The undersigned committee appointed by the president to agitate the calling of a constitutional convention, beg leave to report that, believing, as they did, that the act passed at the extra session in 1896, submitting to the people the question whether or not a constitutional convention should be called, was probably unconstitutional, for the reason that such legislation was not authorized by the call of the governor convening the legislature in extraordinary session, the members of this committee had bills prepared and urged the passage of the same before the legislature of 1897. The bills passed the house with little difficulty, though considerable opposition manifested itself, some leading lawyers taking a part in opposing their passage. It soon became evident, however, that the persons opposing the passage of the bills intended to make a grand stand against the bills in the senate, and so they did. Your chairman, in company with the president of this association, and others interested in the work, appeared several times before the legislature, and upon one occasion your chairman remained in Nashville one week, finally securing, with the aid of others, the passage of the bill. This was only accomplished after the most patient and laborious work, such as is not congenial or pleasant to any gentleThen came the fight before the people to secure a vote calling for a convention.

man.

In order to secure the passage of the bill, it should have been stated that it was deemed absolutely necessary to make a canvass of a part of the state, and so your chairman, in connection with Hon. W. B. Swaney, president of this association, spoke through the middle tier of counties, beginning at Giles and ending with Sumner. If this canvass had not been made, there is little doubt that the bills would have failed of passage in the general assembly. After the passage of the bill, the fight then came on in earnest before the people, and a bitter contest has been raging, the judges and attorneys-general of the state, as well as the office holding classes, almost without exception, being opposed to the movement, and many of them taking the stump against the same.

Headquarters were opened by the Republicans and Democrats at Nashville to oppose the convention, and contributions levied or sought from the officeholders throughout the state. Not content with honorable warfare, the opponents of the convention sent out all sorts of scurrilous and slanderous posters, pretending to give the reason why a constitutional convention was desired, appealing to the lowest prejudices, imposing upon the ignorant, and slandering every man who had any connection with assisting to have a convention called. These circulars declared, among other things, that a new constitution was desired in order to so limit the franchise, so as to allow no one to vote unless he owned $1,000 of real estate, to take away from the people the right to elect all of their officers, and give the power to the governor to appoint all officers, from constable up, to abolish the right of trial by jury, and so on, closing by saying, "And they propose to do one thousand other mean things if they can fool the people and adopt a new constitution."

With a few honorable exceptions, the officeholders throughout the state oppose the convention, and, being organized, have a decided advantage over the friends of the movement. These people, their friends and relatives, and those who expect to hold office, are fighting for their jobs and their expectations in the future; on the other hand, those favoring the movement have only