Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1890-10-06
Te|egTaphic Tidings
ARGUMENTS ANSWERED!
Voters Read Carefully and Heet
Promptly-Earnest and substau-
tial Responses to the
Opposition.
Taxation, the Mines and the Judiciary
Mr.. ChiIders' Every Point Met by
Hon. Frank Springer-A
Readable Document.

Hon. Frank Springer, OF Las Vegas
writes: "I listened to the ant-constitutior
speech of Hon. w. B. Childers at the op
era house Monday evening, with an usua
interest. He is one OF the ablest men in
the Democratic party in the southwest
He is of keen and subtle mind, clear and
incisive in speech, full of resource in argu
ment, and skillful in debate; in short, a
trained and sagacious lawyer, whom no
man at the bar wants to meet without all
| his armor on and his weapons in perfect
order. We came to the territory as young
men, almost at the same time, and ever
since | have recognized with growing ad-
miration his great intellectual power, and
| have entertained for him, as friend, the
| highest esteem. Knowing him thus, it is
| with no little anxiety that learned that
| Childers had taken the field against the
constitution. Having been an humble
member of the convention which framed
it, and knowing it to be of human fabri-
cation, felt that it would naturally have
some weak points, and l was anxious to
hear how serious they were. | knew we
should find them all out as soon as we
heard Childers.
He spoke upward of an hour, and rap
idly, as is his habit. We learned al the
outset that he was not opposed to state
hood, bnt that he and his party were in
favor Of it on general principles, and he
would not consume time arguing about it,
but would proceed at once to expose the
Iniquities OF the Constitution.
Which he declared to be so "vicious"
that he was not willing to enter the
union under it. This declaration aroused
my curiosity to the highest pitch, and
waited in a fever Of expectation for the
specifications to make good the charge.
But the orator directly set out upon a
side excursion in pursuit of the Repub-
lican party, from which I began to fear
he would never get back in time to tell
us of the dangers lurking in this "vicious"
constitution. Finally, after three-fourths
of his time had been spent in promises
of the exposure to come, we were en-
lightened by specification of the oblec-
tions which appear so formidable to 80
enthusiastic q stateman as my friend
Childers, that he would rather stay out OF
the union than risk them. And here
they are:
First, That the constitution was COM
piled from other constitutions.
That is bad, OF course! But you must
make some allowance for difficulties un-
der which the convention labored. There
are, no doubt, number of statesmen in
Mr. Chiledrs' party who can sit down
and devolve out of their inner con-
M u-ill 70
perfect in all its parts, and against which
no human ingenuity can desire an OBJ
lection. But the trouble was these gen
tlemen all kept away. They
Refused to Participate.
They withheld from us the light OF
their intellect, which would nave il
lumined the dark points in our delibera-
tions. And being thus left to their
own resources, and being only ordinary
mortals themselves, all that the members
of the convention could do was to avail
themselves of the history and experience
of the forty states that had preceded us,
and instead of essaying untried expert
ments in government, to adopt. for the
most part, those features of the fundamen-
tai law of other states, which time has
shown to work the best. Ii they had not
done so, what sweet morsel it would
have been for the tongues of anti-con-
sttution orators. and what phillipics
would my friend Childers have thundered
against constitution that had dared to
cut loose from the experience of a century,
and launch the ship of state upon I'M
known waters without chart or COM
pass!
Second, That state taxation is limited to
4 per cent, and state debts to 100000.
Most people, especially those who have
to pay taxes, are glad to have some limi-
tation in the fundamental law upon pos
sible extravaganza in the legislature. 1t
is the first time 1 ever heard it objected
to. II l were politician, should be
tempted to reply that the people who
make this objection now must have hopes
at some time of getting control of the
state government. If so, then their OBJ.
lection to limiting state taxation and
debts is probably, at least, made in good
faith