The Cook County news-herald. [volume] (Grand Marais, Cook County, Minn.) 1909-current, 1916-10-25

ARGUMENTS FOR
AMENDMENT NO. 3.

S~sNOO"6uVuS EVN
AMENDMENT NO. ..
The latest session of the legisla-
ture of Minnesota held in 1915 pre-
pared series of eight proposed a.
mendments to the state constitution
to be submitted to the voters of the
state for ratification at the general
election to be held November Z, 1916.
10 secure the adoption of any one of
the proposed amendments at the
polls it must receive a majority of
all the votes cast in the state at the
election November 7th, not a mere
majority of all the votes cast for
and against the amendment. Thus
it may be readily seen and under
stood that the failure or neglect of
voter to vote on proposed a.
mendment is equivalent in the result
to vote against it.
The adoption or rejection by the
voters of the state of these proposed
constitutional amendments is a mat
ter of much Importance and conse-
quently the voters should read and
understand them before casting
their ballot for or against them in
November.
One of the most important of
these proposed constitutional amend
ments is amendment No. 8, which
proposes to make the terms of office
of the judges of probate of Minneso-
ia four years instead of two years,
the length of their terms at present.
Section Z of article 6 of the state
constitution as it reads at present
is as follows: HE (the Judge of
probate) shall be elected for term
Of two years." In the proposed a.
mendment the word ''four" is substi-
tuted for the word "two'. Amend
ment No. 8 is the last of the series
of amendments appearing on the bal
lot.
At the session of the Minnesota
legislature held in 1913 the terms of
the office Of the county auditor,
county treasurer, sheriff, register of
deeds, county attorney, county sur
veyor and county superintendent of
schools were extended from two year
to four years. The legislature would
have then made the terms of judges
of probate four years the same as
the terms of the other county off,
GERS, but this it. could not do, as the
office of judges Of probate is a con-
stitutional office The legislature
can repeal or amend any law of it's
own creation or enactment, but it
cannot repeal or amend the state
constitution or any part thereof.
That can only be done by the voters
of the state at the polls. The voters
of the state should understand this.
The voters of Minnesota are almost
unanimously in giving the judges of
probate the same tenure of office as
other county officials, but this can
only be done by the voters passing
the proposed Constitutional Amend
ment No. at the election November
q.
At the general election held in
1914 proposed amendment No. z, the
same as proposed amendment No. 8,
was submitted to the voters for ra-
tification. The proposed amendment
was not adopted because it did not
receive a majority of all the votes
cast in the state at that election.
The total vote in 1914 for governor
was 343,255. The total vote on the
proposed amendment No. 7, was
182,580. The vote stood FOR the pro-
posed amendment 98,144; against the
amendment 84,438. From these fig
ures it may be seen that 16O,675 vo-
ters who cast their votes for COVER
nor in 1914, did not vote for pro-
posed constitutional amendment No.
7. The proposed amendment re-
ceived majority of 13,708 of those
who voted on the amendment but
failed of adoption.
The voters of the state generally
concede that the office Of the Judge
of probate is most important one
and that frequent changes of judges
are not for the best interests of the