Year: 1875

The Legislature, at its last session,
passed an Act submitting the question of
Constitutional Convention TO the peo-
pie Of the State. By the terms Of the
act, if a majority o. the votes cast for
members of the Legislature voted in ia
vor of Convention, it would be deemed
that Convention was called BY i'm
plication it followed that all votes cast
for such officers which did not vote for
Convention, must be counted as against
the calling together Of that body. Of
the large vote of the State, (between 100
900 and 1870, ,000,) less than one-half voted
direct upon the question at all, Of those
who did vote a majority was in favor Of
a Convention. But bill has been al
ready introduced into the State Senate
providing for the election of members to
the Convention, and it is claimed by the
advocates Of the measure that as major
ity Of those voting upon the. question
favored the meeting Of such body it was
carried.


1t will not be denied that our organic
law needs many and radical changes.-
Framed twenty-six years ago and adapt
ed TO the condition of the State as it then
was constituted, it is defective in many
respects to the requirements of the pres
ent day. The amendments which have
! l..a fa1 hu
legislative action, have failed to remedy
all the defects Of the instrument, indeed
it is partly by reason Of the chief OF these
| legislative amendments that the desire
for a thorough revision is general. But
the constitution points out the only meth
cd by which the amendment or repeal OF
that instrument can be legally accom-
plished, and all others must, of necessity,
be detective. 1t was clearly not the in
lentiou Of the Convention of 1S49 to per-
nit handful Of voters TO subject the
State to the expense of a convention, but
the provision was made that such con-
vention should be called only when it was
the clearly expressed wish Of majority
of those attending the polls on the day
when the question of calling the conven-
ton was submitted TO the people. That
the desire for convention is not general
at the present time, is evidenced by the
fact that of the large number Of voters
attending the polls at the September cleo
ton, just about one-fourth Of all voted for
the measure. This is clearly no majority
of the votes cast for members of the Leg
islatuIe, nor can it be considered as such
in view of the provisions Of the Consti-
tuition, Itself, or Of the enabling act OF the
last Legislature. The anxiety manifest
ed to force a change when the people re-
fused to order one, gives reason to suspi-
cion the motives OF those who are en-
deavouring to bring this change about
There are other interests to serve than
those of good government, and the Leg
islature Of the State is the body on which
these interests have to work. Where the
Constitution stands in the way of these
interests, they must move for its amend
ment, and it is already hinted that one
great reason for the proposed change is
to get the anti banking clause Of that in
strumcnt modified, or repealed. We
cannot, of course, always fathom the
motives of men correctly, but when
means which seem clearly illegal are re-
sorted to, we have II right to believe that
the movers are not actuated solely by a
desire for the public good.