New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-12-15
THE ADOPTION or AMENDMENTS.

The vote on the Judiciary amendment shows
surprising Indifference to changes in the
State Constitution. A minority of the voters
at the last election secured its adoption, as is
plain at n glance in looking over the official
returns. There were 91S,S94 persons ac-
cordng to the official canvass just completed,
who cast their votes Tor the candidates for
Governor, but only 324, 428 Of these also pre-
sented ballot either for or against the amend
ment The neglect to vote cannot be said to have
been due to the fact that the modification of the
! Constitution proposed was trivial one. An adj
dtion of twelve judges to the Supreme Court
Bench, which was the substance of the amend
ment, surely could not be considered a matter
of slight Importance. Such large increase of
the number of the judges in view of the fact that
! the Courts were already one OF the cOstllest
| features of the State GOvernment-and in this
city the most extrayagant-would naturally
! excite public debate concerning the wisdom of
adopting such measure. There was no such
debate Indeed, the entire history of the
amendment previous to its submission to the
people had revealed that voters cared nothing
| about it.
1t is lnteresting now to recall the various steps
| by which it became law. Quietly, and almost
secretly, it was passed through two Legisa-
lures, exciting i'll its progress not the. slightest
public interest apparently. so little attention
did it attract that although as originally intro
duced it provided for only two additional
Judges, that number was increased to twelve
without exciting public comment. 1t is, per-
haps, unnecessary to state that the amendments
! increasing the number of judges were prOitcred
by lawyer members of the Legislature. Law
yers having originated the amendment, lawyers
engineered its adoption at the polls. Through
the neglect of the Democratic Legislature the
Secretary Of State was not authorized TO print
for free distribution the ballots on the amend
ment. as he was the ballots regarding the Canal
amendment But the lawyers generously
printed at their own expense ballots in favor of
the Judiciary amendment and distributed them
with liberal hand. They put these ballots
especially, it il clear, into the hands of the
"machine" politicians in this city, Brooklyn,
Albany, Syracuse and Buffalo. The result can
be seen III the returns. from the Counties of
Albany, Erie, Kings, Newly rk and OnOndaga
They give altogether 1872, 00l of the 24S,7S4
votes in favor of the amendment There was
no organized opposition, get 1904 votes were
given against! the amendment. This Is an
astonishing vote when the fact is considered
that every man who thus voted had to write his
own ballot. 1t reveals such an. intense feeling
of opposition that the suspicion may be enter
tanned that if the merits OF the amendment had
been discussed, and there had been ballots ut
the service of voters it might have been re-
iected by as large majority as that by
which il was adopted.
The ease with which such an important
amendment to the Constitution was secured by
the persons Interested gives warning that fur
ther protection to that instrument is needed.
The trainers of the Constitution of 1916
thought they had shielded it from hasty or ILL
considered amendment by the provision that
all amendments to it should be made only after
approval by two different Legislatures, and
their adoption by the people ut the polls Ex-
perience has shown, however, that no public
measures are SO carelessly acted uLon by
Legislature and by voters aftcrward rs Con-
stItutionai amendments. There is an absence
also of conservative class of voters, who
would resist frequent changes, which Is not
reassuring. At the polls there seems to be a
drift toward adopting any amendments that
may be proposed. This drift has continued for
sixty years, so that its permanence may be in
fered. Unuer the Constitutions of 1922 and
1916 the Constitution thinkers have passed
through the Legislature and presented to the
people for adoption forty -four amendments to
the Constitution Of the period. OF these eight
have been rejected and thirty-six have been
approved. Nearly all were amendments of a
very important character. At all the elections
4 n
upon 1t was also noticeable, as during the
present year. that the amendments received lar
less of a vote than the candidates for Office. 1t
is obvious that the recllessness of Legislatures
and the caTcessness of voters in dealing with
the amendments render necessary some new
method Of amending the Constitution. The