Springfield globe-republic. (Springfield, Ohio) 1884-1887, 1885-12-03
AddySss al oossspan,nastcns-to
sPpIueFIEID PuBLIsAIIG CO.,
SPRINGFIELD. O.
No. 80.


THURSDAY EVENING. pscsMsER 3, 1885.
-
Se~ and No Again-A Letter from Judge
Ranney.
To the Editor of the Globe Republic:
| have seen your issue of the cath inst.
and have atteutively read your article re-
lating to the proper mode of voting upon
constitutional amendments.
As my only object, in the communication
20 which you refer. was TO invite iuNeS,iga-
ton and reflection as To the proper course
10 he pursued in the future. am much
more than satisfied with the aid YOU furnish
in bringing the matter to public attention.
and with the plain and candid manner in
which your reasons and conclusions are
stated.
There certainly can be very little eNpec-
tation that ! can agree with you In what
seems TO he your fundamental proposition,
Cd that the end justifies the means. and
that the question should be whether
or not the amendment is desirable 10
the intelligent voters of the state.
Ii il is so desirable. the Intelligent voters
are perfectly justifiabe in 50 printing the
ticket (printing it with only Yes as that the
ignorant and mthinking voter shall vote
for it: because that is The only ,cag nc can
be g,a Ia taror of amy amendment"
There might be considerable difficulty in
making this classification and determining
int. .sa.sh class hIlf If
was accomplished. | should he at loss 10
know what right either would have to
(a) use the other in the manner proposed.
1t is certain that such a distinction has no
place in the constitution: but. on the con
trary. i'm language as plain aseyer was used.
the people themselves have declared that
what they have once established shall not
he changed until the proposition TO do so
meets the (sl Gppronut of majority OF al
the electors voting at a general election.
While therefore | cannot concur in
your views. and very firmly believe that, If
this precedent is followed il Will take but a
few years to make of the constitution
IA an incongruous mass OF patchwork, yet
others tfenN ulalh- uiiltitiiis. aih iN-"'
your reasons as altogether sufficient
But, in any event. in matter SO vitality
important as that which concerns the Ger
tainty and stability of the fundamental laws
of a great state. venture to suggest whether,
in connection with this note you might not
consider il proper TO publish the c"mmuaica-
tioini to which You take exception, in order
that your intelligent readers may have al
the reasons which rightfully bear upon the
subject Very truly yours,
z p. RANNEN.
Cleveland. o.. Nov. rs. lss5.
REMaRKs.-In our recent editorial under
the caption Of ''Yes and No" We endeavored
fairly 10 present Judge Ranney's argument
against what he denounced as trick-to-
wit. the printing Of only Yes 10 a PROPOSE
ton for a constitutional amendment on
ballot-and 10 reply 10 his argument His
reasoring-in long letter, which We have
not space to spare for-was u that the
trainers of the constitution intended the
voter to choose between Yes and No as 10
an amendment presented 10 him: l2D that
therefore the ballot should be so printed a>
to afford him the opportunity for such
choice: t3) that, unless ii was 50 printed.
the careless voters attention would not be
drawn to what he was voting about; and
"a that thus the careless voter would be de-
ceived into voting what he did not intend IL
vote. To this we replied in effect, "a that
al. .a...f
land 50 providedD that majority of all the
ballots east should have Yes on them in or
der to the adoption of a constitutional
amendments: t2l that, only Yes counting
for an amendment anything else is sur
plusage and counts against; t3l that the
careless voters attention would no more be
drawn 10 both Yes and No than il would be
10 Yes alone : and (4l that the careless
voter. who neither knows nor cares what
he is voting about if he can be said to be
deceived in voting. would better be deceived
into voting for an amendment than against
il, because the presumption in the case Of
an amendment. submitted by three-fifthS Of
each house of the general assembly. is that
a large majority of the intelligent voters Of
the state. who do care what they are voting
about. desire its adoption, and it would be
a wrong to have it defeated by few thou
sand ignorant voters who care nothing about
il one way or the other.
Judge Ranney's foregoing letter 20 the
GLOBE REPUBIIC has two or three points
that we have noted by figures for the pur-
pose of directing a few remarks 10 them
in their order, as follows:
IN We do hold ''that the end juStifies the
means provided that the end is good one
and is desired by the intelligent means
and not cared for at all by She ignorant
means"
t2) There is no question here of either
deceiving, classifying. or using voters.
There is simply the question whether those
who vote thoughtIessly and heedleSSly. with
utter indifference, should always be counted
as opposed to an amendment. and never in
its favor. The presumption is in lis favor,
Ia start with. else three-iifthS of the peoples
IN the Legislature would not
nave IL W ~. AAAsih- 'aA''i' '''''
the ballots be 50 printed As to catch the care
less and Indifferent voters in IFS favor, as
well as or rather than to put them always
in the count against it9 Il is no trick, but
is simply provision for leading the blind
and needless in line with the general intelli-
gence of the people of the state. and III the
way they would want to go If they would
take the trouble to see and think what they
wanted.
fSl We think that Judge Ranney does
not mean 10 say that the word ''dpprordt7 /
is used ia the constitution exactly IN the
aid the sense in which he
has here cited it with such empha-
phasis. Certainly, the careless voters. con- |
eerning whom only We are discussing. can 1
not properly be said either to approve or
to disappreve, and yet their affirmative bal /
lots are as much an approval and their neg
stiye ballots are as much disapproval, in