The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1919-01-15

pie do not vote for clerks and others who !
with sufficient discrimination to guarantee
us good results. The county ballot, like
of c1area h Ie i00 should be ueon the
same basis as it is in private life-abiiity !
to do the work: The present county sys-
| tenn in many instances does little more
than establish an expensive. political
asylum. the unnecessary cost OF which is
1t is undoubtedly true that simplifiea-
| ton of our county government alone wouldS
! save to the taxpayers of this state between
one and two million dollars year and
would result in better government. In
stead of electing man to hold county
reference to his ability and then employ
| ing a deputy to do the work. we would
begin the system where the deputy begins
| with the necessary work of the office
Other states studying this problem
and are heading in this direction. 1t is
! ton of business principles in government
The necessity for changes in the funda-
ject of simplifying county government,
calls for at least six constitutional amend
ments which, under our system of amend
changes to find expression in law.
There is also to consider the weIl-known
| disposition of the people to regard with
Indifference the importance of a constitu
tional amendment when it is submitted to
! them. No more conclusive example of this
could be found than In the case of the con-
| stitutional amendment. submitted in 1914
right, to classify property for purposes of
any intelligent thought to the subject that
this was a merltorious constitutional
amendment 1t was a need so obvious
that the presumption was that it would
pass practically without opposition. Yet
the people failed to take adequate interest
in the matter. 1t was merely one of the
many things demanding attention in a
general election and they practically ig
n0red it. with the result that nearly 400
of those who voted for governor did not
vote upon the amendment at all; The
amendment. tho it received n small vote,
was defeated by a trifling majority.
Stop Tinkering.
We have attempted many times to tinker
with the constitution" thru the process of
amendments. but have never received any
thing approximating a general considera-
ton of any constitutional amendment. The
objection to this process of correcting the
fundamental law of the state is that it con-
stitutes patchwork of provisions not re-
lated to each other, not forming any part
OF a comprehensive plan. and for that rea-
son it is necessarily imperfect So many
reasons exist for rewriting the constitution
| of the state that l believe this legislature
should give to the people an opportunity to
express themselves upon the question TO
whether or not they wish constitutional
e The law provides that it is within the
power of the Legislature to submit this mat
ter to the decision of the people There is
: no other way of initiating it than thru
5 legislative action, and L do not believe that
J the legislature can. in common justice to
e right to express themselves in the next BIZ
t ennial election upon this subject.
3 Call Convention In 1921.
\ In case the people in the next biennial
i choose to have it held, the convention
should be called in the succeeding off year,
so that 1t would be the one absorbing topic
demanding their attention at that time and
a the constitution thus written would be the
n expression of an intelligent interest and a
t full cooperation.
Il The present provision for writing a new
o constitution does not call for its submits
DPODlp after M
been written. If this legislature decides Il
. submit the subject to the people for their
o vote, 1t should submit it with the provision
that the constitution. when written shall
:. be submitted to vote of the people, fol
their approval or rejection.
i Old Eugaboos Removed.
Formerly, when the need of a constitu
s ttonal convention urged. four objec
: tons were generally cited by those who
d opposed it. One was that it might endan
ger the prohibitory amendment it exist,
= IN our present constitution: another, tina
, other was the expense, and the other wa
the fear that we might write imprope
e disappeared. The prohibition question il
s settled. The second objection is also dis
: posed OF. No man now contends that W.
3 third, that we cannot bear the expense, i
y ! petty and unworthy of US. and the fourth
= that there is danger in submitting to tn
q people an opportunity to rewrite their con
8 stitution, is cowardly.
Il B There is nothing i'll the history of tn
E. people of this state which gives the legisla
N ture any right to be afraid of the judgmen
l. of the people when that Judgment is backe,
by the thoughtful consideration with whic
1t would be surrounded in a constitutions
- convention held after three years of prope
II discussion and education.
# The states of Ohio and Indiana contrib
n uted very largely in the writing of GU
% majority of the provisions were mode eG
% has discarded the old document that guide
&c our grandfathe and has written Il he,
- one which has enabled that great state t
go forward into many forms of improves
., government denied to us. Indiana, froT
10 which gathered some of our ideas i
i; now engaged in rewriting her constitution
10 Many progressive states in whose societ
a Kansas has pretended to travel. have eithe
~ rewritten their constitutions nov
~ engaged in the process.
- We have united people. The legislator
1t is very largely in the hands of a unite
- party. There has never been hour i
u this state when the need for a const
ri tuition was more apparent and when
=. could be written with obvious an ex
- preston of harmony and cooperation.