The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-12-15
CoNsTTTuTToNAL NEEDs-

The discussion of the question Of
holding q constitutional convention has
reached that stage at which 1T seems
almost inevitable that it shall become
an issue at the approaching session OF
the legislature.
Who wants a constitutional conven-
ton, and for what purpose2
Al careful review Of the reasons ad-
vaneed on the platform and through
the press for a constitutional conven-
ton reveals the fact that they have to
DO ia almost every instance with the
prohibitory law and the supreme court.
Tit is urged that an increase In the num-
Der Of supreme judges is not only need
ed but is desired by the people and
that such increase cannot be obtained
by amendment If an increase in the
number Of judges cannot be obtained
by amendment, is il not clear that
there is not that desire for such in
crease. on the part of the people. that
the advocates of a convention would
have the public believer
An imperative necessity for the re-
lief of the supreme court has been de-
clared to exist for many years and the
people were called upon to pass upon
the question Of charging the court in
1880, but they voted it down. Kansas
has continued to do business at the old
stand.
Probably the chief source Of the
clamor for a constitutional convention
IS a desire for a resubmission Of the
prohibitory liquor amendment. Some
gentlemen assert that a majority Of the
people are just aching for an oppor-
tunity to vote on prohibition again. IF
this be true it is idle to claim that they
are the friends Of prohibition. They
could not ask more than they already
have. and if any such are DESTROYS of
a. new constitution it is for other
reasons than a wish to vote again on
this question. The alleged majority,
therefore. who would again put pro-
hibition to the test are clearly it's OPP
ponents.
IF the opponents Of prohibition are i'm
the majority. can they not accomplish
what they wish by amendment as well
as by putting the state to the great ex-
pense which would be entailed by a
convention2 If the abolition Of prohibit
tion cannot be brought about by
amendment. then it must be clear that
the people do not want it abolished.
While, then, lit appears that there is
no good and substantial reason for
calling a constitutional convention
there are many reasons against it,
Chief among these is the expense i'm /
Cured in attempting to do in this way
what could be done much more cheap
ly-if at all-in another way. Another
is the impossibility Of keeping the mat
ter clear Of partisan politics.
Then there is the necessary delay
involving the consumption Of Ave on
six years in doing what might as we'll
be done ia two. Above all is the uncer- /
tainty- Who can say that after a new
constitution is arranged to the satisfac-
tion DC the delegates. the people would
not reject it and leave the organic law
Of the state just where it IS today,
after hundreds of thousands Of dollars
had been expended Ia an effort TO
change it,
If the present constitution be util-
lied to its limit for the benefit Of the
people, they viii probably be satisfied
with it in the main for some time TO
come. Let the legislature and the
courts try doing their best with what
they have for a while.