The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-10-29

New York, October 9th. 1915.
Hon. Elihu Root, New York City, N. Y:
Dear Sir-In answer to your telegram of September
eth, asking me to become a member of a Committee of Citi-
zens to advocate the adoption of the new Constitution, I said
that was not at that time sufficiently familiar with the
Constitution to know whether or not l would be in favor of
its adoption: furthermore, that I did not at that time know
in what form it was to be submitted, whether in sections or
as a whole. Since that time the Constitution has been SUBJ
mitted substantially as a whole, and I have tried, as a lay
man, to make AS careful a study of it as possible.
My conclusion is that it should not be adopted. My
reasons are specific, and are as follows:
Iom whoVy opposed to the demand made on the peoDle
By The CoDrcation that the Constitution be adopted pyucti-
cuNg in uhoic or not at oil. Sixteen of the eighteen sections
are submitted in one vote and these sixteen questions are the
al-important part of the Constitution. | can think of but
two reasons for the Convention having taken this course:
First, that it had so little respect for the intelligence of the
voters of this State that it did not believe them capable of
wisely discriminating between the sixteen different sections.
or. Second. that it feared the intelligence of the voters and
realized that they would discriminate and that many of the
proposed amendments. if submitted separately. would UNI
questionably be rejected. Neither reason is creditable to the
Convention. Whichever Of these reasons existed. the fact is
tina. he coteyS hGce been deprired of Their Maquestioaed right
to S,hcc and re jcct as they might deem proper. This right
was granted the voters of Ohio in voting on their recently
revised Constitution, where AZ propositions were submitted.
81 of which were adopted and 8 rejected. 1t was granted to
the people Of New Hampshire. where 4 propositions were
alopted and s rejected. In the State of Connecticut the Con-
sttution was submitted in bulk twice, and each time was re-
iected. In this State in 1867 a new Constitution was sub
mrted in bulk. with the exception of the Judiciary article.
which was submitted separately. The Judiciary article was
accepted and the Constitution rejected.
1t seems clear to me that there is no answer to the serious
objection to the manner of submitting the new Constitution.
1t is a fundamental weakness in the whole scheme. l appre-
ciate that in a great document like a State Constitution there
has to be Il certain amount of give and take and that half a
loaf is sometimes better than no loaf at all, granted almgys
that the half loaf be not poisoned. Why should a man who
objects to the Conservation article, for example, but who
favors the Short Ballot article, be forced to take the Con-
servaticn article in order to get the Short Ballot article?
This illustration applies to many of the articles.
In a statement issued by the "Committe For the Adop-
ton of the Constitution" printed in Monday mornings pa
pers. this procedure of submitting the Constitution in bulk
was sought to be excused, and the Committee, among other
things. said: This might have been the appropriate method
if the Convention had done nothing but suggest scattered
changes on unrelated subjects. However. each important re-
form supplements and supports some other REFORM