Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1900-11-07

The frienis or that expert expolnder
OF constitutional law, Major 4. NJ. Carr,
were grieved on reading the last issue
of the Manchester Democrat to notice
the apparent confusion under which he
10 laboring with regard to the constitu-
tional convention to be voted upon this
year. Mr.. Carr says in his paper that
"no good reason can be advanced for
going to the great expense of holding
constitutional convention. 1t would
benefit; few politicians by giving
them temporary employment, and that
is probably why 1t was proposed. File,
fie, Major Is it possible that you are
not familiar with that article of the
constitution of Iowa which provides
that constitutional conventions shall be
held in 1870 and every ten years there
afterP The article referred to is Article
10, Section 8, and it may be found on
page los of the code of 1897. We will
say, In addition, that If necessary we
can supply the Observation-Disclosures Press.
AS usual the superficial young man
who poses as editor in chief of the
Press is wrong. He does not take time
to investigate any subject about which
he attempts to write, and probably it
would not make any difference if he
did. His literary efforts are decidedly
shallow, and are we'll illustrated by his
attempted criticism quoted above. He
says that Section 3, of Article 10, of the
constitution of Iowa, provides, that
constitutional conventions shall be
held In 1870 and every ten years there
after."
A reference to said section 10 (page
los of the code of 1897 will show the
falsity of the learned ~ young mans
statement. What it does state is, that
the question, 'Shall there be conven-
ton to revise the constitution, and
amend the same ?" shall be submitted to
the electors every tenth year after the
year 1870. There is quite difference
mot discernible of course to the Press
EDITOR between requiring constitution
al convention to be held every tenyesrs,
and one, requiring the question as to
whether g constitutional convention
shall be held, to be submitted to q vote
Of the electors.
In order to enlighten the said editor,
we give the section referred to in full: 1t
is ss follows.
Article 10, Sec. 3. At the general cleo
ton to be held in the year 1870, and in
each tenth year thereafter, and also at
such times as the general Assembly
may, by law, provide, the question,
"Shall there be convention to revise
the constitution, and amend the same?'
shall be decided by the electors qualified
to vote for members of the general as
sembly; and in case majority of the
electors 80 qualified, voting at such
election for and against such p.oposi-
tion shall decide in favor of conven-
tion for such purpose, the general As
sembly at its next session, shall provide
by law for the election of delegates to
such convention"
1t is not usual for us to notice the
vsporings of the Press, and we do so
now only to assure its editor that
neither the friends of Mr.. Carr, nor Of
the writer of the article criticized by
the Press, have any cause to feel "griev-
ed" by said article.
In the Democrats item the word "pro,
posed" was inadvertently used instead
Of the words provided for" This
might very properly have been made
the subject of criticism, but the cavilel
of the Press though he was seeking to
find q flaw in the article, and had the
constitutional provision to which it re-
ferred, before him, was too obtuse to
discover.