The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1911-06-03

Laporte, Ind, June 3.-Speaking to
the subject of The New Constitution
and the Old" Governor Thomas R.
Marshall, in his address before the
members of the Indiana Democratic
Editorial Association in this city, Fri
day afternoon, presented his views on
a subject which just now is attracting
wide attention throughout the state.
The governor said in part:
Perhaps you have observed that
have consistently refrained from an
swering charges and criticisms. I
shall continue this custom. II the
truth deserves criticism, no apology
will prevent it. When falsehoods are
uttered, they contain the virus Of their
own destruction. l say this that you
may not think l am here to apologize
for anything had to do with the new
constitution. l propose to give only a
brief explanation of the reasons for
its presentation to the people and to
explain in the language of the common
man every particular in which it
differs from our present constitution.
There is no mystery connected with
its presentation and no difficulty in
understanding it's provisions.
eess People to Investigate.
81 am not Of those who believe that
the people should follow men instead
OF principles. For nearly three years.
whenever it has been opportune.
have begged the people to investigate
questions for themselves and to fol-
low no man when he seeks to lead
them out Of the beaten path of orderly
| and constitutional government and
strives to impress upon them his par
ticular views regardless OF the
common good. The man who fnjects
his personality into contest Is very
likely to become dangerous. Most re-
formers are busily engaged in prevent
ing people from doing the things
which the reformer himself does not
| like and In compelling people to do
things of which the reformer is en-
amoured. l am not responsible that
the proposed new constitution is call
ed the tom Marshall constitution"
1t is a name given to 1t to ridicule it.
1t Is to be laughed out of existence,
not because Of what 1t contains, but
| because happen to be connected with
its presentation. II would be we'll for
US to realize that the business of an
American is to have a mind OF his
| own: to gather together facts and not
fancies, and then, with a patriotic
judgment. to determine whether a
proposal is one which will inure to
the common good without being sub
versive Of our principles OF govern
ment. 1t is in such a spirit that de-
sire to present to you the conditions
which led to the presentation OF the
new constitution to the sober consid-
Grafton Of the voters OF Indiana.
Power to Alter Constitution.
At the outset say frankly that If
this new constitution deprives the peo-
pie Of Indiana of any measure Of their
| government and lessons their hold
upon public affairs. it ought to be re-
| jected at the polls. Upon the other
hand. II it gives the people a better
form Of government, and one not in
consistent with Federal principles, il
1t enables them to take better control
of their own affairs and tends to
clarity and purify politics in Indiana,
1t should be adopted by the people re-
CARELESS of whence 1t came or how 1t
found its way before them.
| "As to the legal phases may not
properly speak. A suit has been
brought to determine whether a free
| people can alter and reform their
| constitution. My belief in the right
of the judiciary to act unhampered by
executive interference is so strong as
to preclude any discussion by me Of
the law involved in that suit The
legal procedure I pass by therefore,
resting content with the belief that
we have, in some way, full power to
| alter and reform our constitution.
The pending litigation limits me to
! a consideration of the reasons which
| led up to the presentation of the new
| constitution and the differences be-
tween 1t and the present document
The constitution OF 1916 provided that
| every twelve years thereafter a vote
should be taken by the people Of the
State to determine whether or not
constitutional convention should
| assemble. and that If majority voted
favorably a convention should be call
ed. In the regular order Of periods,
the vote should have been taken in
the year 1925. Yet, in the annual
| message to the Legislature of 1s49,
| Governor Whitcomb declared there
was need Of reforms in the document,
and upon his recommendation a con-
stitutional convention was called.
That convention took up, first, the
question OF it's own legal existance,
and, secondly, whether a twelve-year
clause should be repeated in the new
document. The constitution, upon be.
| ing submitted to the people, was
adopted and became, in 1851, tho or
| ganic Law OF Indiana 1t has remained
such until this day. 1t contains no
statement whatever as to the manner
in which a new constitution may be
adopted by the people. That omis-
| sion had led to different theories as