Albuquerque morning journal., 1910-12-11
The Other Side

Il
| Editor Morning Journal;
| | presume that in discussing tn
| adoption of the proposed constitution
| those that favor it, as well as thos
| that oppose, are actuatcd by motive
| Of the public good. If that be SO
We may dismiss any prejudice. ran
| cor, or vituperation. The truth ant
| real merits of any case can be ascer
| tanned best by way OF a calm and de
| liberate consideration Of its merits o.
demerits.
You will permit me, therefore, t.
say q few words regarding your edi
torial in yesterdays Journal, under
the head OF The Financial End O
It,. In the first place, | wish to cal
attention to the fact that congress
expressly provided for re-convening
he constitutional convention in the
event that the first constitution was
rejected. Evidently, congress must
have considered that 100000 ought
to cover that expense or that a sub
sequent appropriation is to be made
to cover the deficiency. And | feel
that congress was liberal in this APP
preparation.
To have spent $95. 900, il your fig
ures are correct, for the one conven-
ion and elections. is far from being
ministering finances economically
and Tor the best interests of the
people. And it is possible that con-
gress may consider that as mall
administration and for that very rca-
son hesitate to admit us into the
Union.
TO say that it is a foolish claim"
that the 100000 was meant to cover
two conventions, is hardly an argu-
ment in the light Of the enabling act,
which provides for two conventions.
Acrid adjectives only weaken the ar
gument They remind one Of mo
case, abuse the plaintiffs attorney"
That Arizona was also given 100000
only argues the extreme liberality of
congress. As the writer was present
through the entire constitutional con-
Vention and knows what occurred. he
frank to say that there are
goodly number of men in New Mexico
who could have held the two conven-
lions and elections, paid All necessary
Vncnses, written a good constitution
In which the interests of all the peo-
pie are protected, and still had $4,000
left.
If congress did not intend to make
provision for re-eonvening the dele
ates why did they put IL into the
enabling actP Was that simply
Joker ." And here we may ask. was
he provision Tor separate submission
Of certain propositions also merely
joker?" That the enabling act does
not mean what il SAYS, is 10 put con
gress at one or the other horn of this
lilemma. Either they were not
capable or not honest in writing the
,nahling acti Congress must be
charged with one or the other. OF the
act must be taken TO mean what 1t
says II il means what il saws. then
congress provided for re-convening
he delegates and the appropriation
vas and is sufficient for the purposes
pf The enabling act
Now. if putting the initiative. re-
'all and prohibition into the consti-
utiou. and thus bringing government
lack 90 the people. and joining
movement which is sweeping over
,merica and reaching into the very
icart of China and an parts OF the f.
world, is to defeat the constitution. 70 2
rad better he defeated. Who was o. .
nat really wrote the constitution lis 4
not the special interests. including 1
he liquor interests is it not "a fact 4
bat the constitution is trust-naie |
nd hquor-soaked Were there not /
pwards ot twenty liquor-cclicrs aa /
ei5 saies be the constitutional con- /
enticn' liid they not trv CD strongly /
ominate the convention Who was
sleep. that hc should not have seen |
nd henrd What went on there
Certainly congress provided that i
fohimtion. So FAR as she Indians arc