The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-10-11
CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES.

1llG DLdlC JlGSS COllllilbC0 lO lllIGIGSl itself in the fact that at the last cleo ton the proposed amendment of the State constitution was rejected by the people voting by heavy plurality. The changes recommended were in no sense of the word a serious and funda- mental alteration of the basic law. The codification of the constitution has been approved by lawyers for num- Der of years as a matter of conven- fence to them and of benefit to the State at large, but the people would not ac- cepf it if they had to take with it the inconsequential extension of the terms of judges of probate from two to four years and the increase in the pay of legislators from $500 to $500.
 The Waterbury American has this to say upon the treatment the proposed amendments received: "Waterbury cast much larger vote on the con- stitutional amendment question than any other Connecticut city--a few short of 1000. Hartford cast only l. 900; Bridgeport 1900; New Haven t,6oO, etc. Waterbury went two to one in favor of the amendment; Hartford two to one against; Bridgeport short of three to one against; Danbury two to one for. The Hartford Courant can not account for these changes. Why, for instance, should Waterbury, where there was little discussion of the mat ter, vote so heavily for the amended constitution, while Hartford, where the arguments for it were put so strongly, cast so many votes against lit? Perhaps the manner of presenting the case had something to do with it. The Courant, we notice, took it for granted that the voters would give 1t big majority. as they should have done, in our opinion. But this very assumption may have offended sensi- tive Hartfordites. It was holding them tSo cheaply, and they resented it by voting the other way"
 The principle points involved in the controversy are these: First. the pro- posed amendments were rejected by an emphatic plurality Second, that | only fraction of the voters took the trouble to vote at all. The only possible explanation of this outcome is that the people had no understanding of what was proposed. The usual educational sources of information were dried up. The newspapers took 1t for granted Ithat no objection would be offered to so simple change in the fundamental | law and devoted their attention to things of obvious import. This ex- plains but it does not overcome the ap- prehension many citizens of the State of Connecticut feel with regard to the confused understanding which exists lin the mind of the average voter over constitutional power. It was clearly 1 demonstrated in the constitutional convention that even men trained ir the science of the law had no idea oi how to proceed to consider constitu. tional matters. There had not been a convention within the recollection of the oldest living inhabitant and the minutes of the last one, that held ir l1S1S, were valueless fir aiding pro gram of procedure. The delegates
 were then obliged to blaze a new
 path, the very laboriousness of which
 did more to contribute to the impati.
 ence of the public than any one thing,
 ! It is not fair to attribute to the peo- pie of the State at the last election ar
 indifference to proposed constitutiona
 changes. They simply knew no more
 
 about what was expected of then lthan the delegates in the convention
 knew when they first assembled. The danger of this attitude of mind con
 sists in the ease with which 1t Is con
 ceivable the constitution might b.
 amended by interested parties and tht
 loss of public respect It might in
 cur through unfamiliarlty. There k
 manifest wisdom in the practice O New York in compelling constitu
 tional convention in twenty years fol
 the purpose of keeping the people al
 closely in touch with methods O
 constitutional change as they are fl
 touch with the methods of legislation
 For Connecticut to care nothing fo,
 It's constitution except to keep it al lit is is not good judgment from an!
 point of view.
 --------a-a--~@--.---------