Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

SHOULD THE NEW CONSTITUTION BE ADOPTED

AND WHY?

W. T. Alden, Chicago:

It

YES. It is a great improvement on our present constitution. affords the means for adopting and putting into effect an efficient and up-to-date taxing system and for abolishing the present farcical system of taxation, which has been a disgrace to the State of Illinois for many years. It provides for a unified court system for Cook County, under which a business administration of both the civil and criminal courts can be inaugurated, and it lodges responsibility for an efficient administration of justice by the courts of the state with the Supreme Court, where it should be. Other articles of the proposed constitution are a great improvement on the corresponding articles in our present constitution, but even though they were not an improvement I am of the opinion that on account of the revenue and judiciary articles alone the proposed constitution should be adopted.

Edwin M. Ashcraft, Chicago:

YES. The new constitution should be adopted chiefly for the reason that it is the only choice the voters have between the new constitution in the form submitted and the Constitution of 1870, which needs reforming. The constitution now submitted is an improvement on the old chiefly in permitting an income tax instead of attempting to tax intangible properties and investments and in giving more power to the Supreme Court in the matter of pleading and practice, which power, if properly exercised, ought to relieve a great amount of congestion in our courts and very much simplify our practice and certainly standardize it.

Howard P. Castle, Chicago:

YES. (1) Minority representation in the General Assembly is abolished. (2) It affords a fair compromise basis for representation in the General Assembly. (3) Appropriation bills must be printed in final form three days before passage. (4) New laws will not be effective until sixty days after the legislature adjourns. (5) The constitution is more easily amended. My legislative experience convinces me that all these points are important. Many other reasons could be stated.

Jesse L. Deck, Decatur:

YES. (1) On the whole. I consider it a decided improvement upon the present constitution, regardless of some just criticisms made against it. No proposed constitution ever met all the hopes of any electorate, and none ever will. (2) The revenue provisions make just taxation a more workable proposition. (3) The proposed changes in the "Bill of Rights," in the main, are much needed. (4) The limitation of representation of Cook County in the General Assembly, as proposed, will provide checks and balances as between Cook County and "down state," such as to guarantee against any unwholesome legislation as against either party in interest, and should, therefore, be approved by both. (5) The judiciary provisions are needed and are a decided improve

ment. (6) The proposed reduction of election days will work a vast saving in money, will emphasize the elections to be held, and will produce a better and more complete expression of the voters.

Edward F. Dunne, Chicago:

No. (1) It deprives Cook County of fair representation, in accordance with its population, in the senate. (2) It deprives Cook County of fair representation in future constitutional conventions, giving Cook County only forty-five members, while the rest of the state is given seventy-six. (3) It deprives the electors of Cook County of the right to keep on the bench judges voted for by the electors of that county, and prevents duly elected judges from controlling the procedure of their courts. (4) It disqualifies the City of Chicago from issuing bonds for the acquisition of all income-producing public utilities, excepting transportation and water. It would deprive the City of Chicago of the right to issue bonds for the acquisition of a gas works or an electric light plant. (5) In the event of the purchase by the city of a transportation company, it would impose conditions that would deter many voters favorable to public ownership from voting in accordance with their desires. (6) It contains no provision for the initiative and referendum, contrary to the instructions of the voters who voted for the Constitutional Convention. (7) Its provisions for forestation would open the door to the proprietors of landed estates for the perpetration of fraudulent exemptions of real property under the guise of forestation.

Wayne H. Dyer, Kankakee:

No. Many provisions probably mean exactly what is meant by similar provisions in our present constitution but are in different phraseology so that they would require unnecessary judicial interpretation. The revenue provisions make it possible to more than double taxes which are already too high. If it should be said that the income tax provisions make it possible to circumvent tax dodgers, the answer is that those who will file false personal property schedules under the present law would file false income tax returns. The few desirable changes attempted to be made could be made by amendment to our present constitution.

Albert D. Early, Rockford:

YES. [Reasons not stated.]

Philip E. Elting, Macomb:

YES. It represents the best judgment of a large majority of the delegates selected by the people to revise, alter, or amend the constitution, retaining intact the American idea of a representative form of government. It is in all respects a better constitution. Its commending features are: the intrinsic excellence of its subject matter, the simplicity of its language, its definiteness in principle, its elasticity in detail, all of which will contribute much more to the public welfare than the Constitution of 1870.

Mitchell D. Follansbee, Chicago:

YES. Minority representation beginning as a delusion, continuing as a disaster, goes. The legislature, almost unhampered, may be guided by recent experience and modern thought on the ever-changing subject of taxation. A unified court should give prompter and more adequate relief. No commonwealth of rapid growth and ever-shifting conditions should have a constitution half a century old.

George C. Gale, Galesburg:

YES. (1) Because it settles the question of Chicago's representation in a fair manner. At present Chicago is unlimited and consequently the down-state members of the legislature will never redistrict the state, which is most unfortunate. Under the new plan neither Chicago nor the down-state can control absolutely, and the new system of representation according to electors instead of according to population is provided, which system all thoughtful persons unite in believing superior to the old. (2) It gives the legislature a chance to adopt a fair revenue system which the present constitution, substantially the same in revenue matters as that of 1818, does not. It also places the courts in much better position than at present: keeps the appellate court from interfering with the circuit court, as does the present one; and enables the Supreme Court to adopt a proper method of pleading and practice. It ought also be borne in mind that the question is not whether we shall have a perfect constitution, but whether we can make a better one than that of 1870.

Hiram T. Gilbert, Chicago:

Referthey

YES. [Refers in detail to his pamphlet "The Judiciary Provisions of the Proposed New Constitution: With Explanatory Notes." ring to the judiciary provisions, the author says (p. 7): ". have no defects which will operate to hinder competent judges, under the leadership of the Supreme Court from demonstrating to the people of this state that they have the best judiciary system in the United States."]

Oliver A. Harker, Urbana:

YES. The state has outgrown the present constitution. Especially is that true as to the provisions of Article VI (Judicial Department) and of Article IX (Revenue). The provisions contained in Articles V and VII of the proposed instrument will free the people of the state from many of the embarassments which the restrictions of the present constitution have caused.

Walter H. Jacobs, Chicago:

YES. It is an improvement on the present constitution. The provisions of the article relating to the judicial department seem to be sufficient justification for recommending its favorable consideration by the voters.

James Clarke Jeffery, Chicago:

YES. Every constitution in every government has always been a compromise. While the new constitution is perhaps not an ideal one, it is far superior to the one of 1870. This must be the only point to be taken into consideration-is it better or worse? Briefly, the consolidation of courts in Cook County, the change in trial by jury in civil cases, the change in revenue law, together with a much greater elasticity permitted in legislation of all kinds, while perhaps revolutionary, is undoubtedly in the right direction, and should receive the support of every citizen of Illinois, irrespective of party politics.

Harry Eugene Kelly, Chicago:

YES. (1) Chiefly because of the benefits to Chicago and especially the provision for consolidation of Cook County courts. (2) Because of the judiciary article, which gives power to the Supreme Court to make rules of court. (3) Because it abolishes minority representation in the General Assembly.

Frank J. Loesch, Chicago:

YES. (1) It meets progressive ideas. It simplifies jury trials. (2) It allows the people better legislative representation by making 153 representative districts with one representative each instead of the present 51 districts with three representatives each, and abolishes the misnamed minority voting system. (3) It increases the number of Supreme Court judges and enlarges the court's original jurisdiction. It requires the Supreme Court to make rules for procedure and practice in all litigation; that should result in the expedition of decisions and reduction of costs. (4) It unifies the courts of Cook County, consolidating seven present courts into one. (5) It enlarges the powers of the legislature concerning revenue legislation, which should result in a more equitable distribution of the burdens of taxation to the relief of real estate owners. (6) It give home rule to Chicago.

Frank O. Lowden, Oregon:

YES. (1) It preserves fully the bill of rights. (2) It provides that the legislature may, in lieu of direct taxes upon intangible personal property, levy a uniform income tax upon the revenue derived from such property. There can be no possible question but that a very much larger income will be derived from this form of personal property in this way than at present. This should lower the rate of taxation upon real estate. (3) The legislature is authorized to exempt lands devoted to forestry from taxation, or to classify them therefor. Under this section, it would be possible for the legislature to provide, in lieu of direct taxation upon such lands, that when the timber grown thereon had matured, the owner should pay to the state some portion of the proceeds realized from the sale of such timber. This would encourage forestry in Illinois. It is altogether probable that if the waste acres of Illinois were devoted to forestry, Illinois, in seventy-five or a hundred years, would be producing timber for all its own needs. (4) No report of any conference committee on an appropriation bill shall be con

sidered unless the bill or report has been printed in its final form and placed on the desks of the members at least three legislative days prior to final passage. (5) The minority system of representation is abolished. Under a practice which has become quite extensive, the people have no choice of representatives, but must take the three certified to them by the parties. Minority representation, too, has become one of the most fruitful causes of evil bipartisan combinations. Illinois alone has preserved this form of representation and it is high time that she rid herself of it. (6) Under the old constitution but one article can be amended at a time. In my opinion, if the old constitution, like the new, had provided that two articles might be amended at one time, there would today be no necessity for a new constitution. Indeed, if there were no other reason for supporting the new constitution as against the old, this one change, in my opinion, would be a sufficient reason for voting for the new constitution.

Edward H. S. Martin, Chicago:

YES. Although the new constitution is far from perfect, yet it is a great improvement on the present one, and the provision for submission of amendments to two articles at one election makes correction of defects twice as easy as heretofore. No constitution will be considered perfect by all, and unless the voters consider relative merit, we will have the old one forever.

Catherine Waugh McCulloch, Chicago:

YES. The new constitution is superior to the old one. We would not be able to persuade the voters to authorize another convention within the next twenty years.

George P. Merrick, Chicago:

YES. It is a distinct improvement over the present constitution, particularly in its revenue and judiciary sections. Most that is good in the old constitution is retained in the new. No radical changes favoring classes or special interests, though demanded, have been added. It is broad and elastic enough to provide for more equal taxation and a better administration of justice than seems possible under the present constitution.

John R. Montgomery, Chicago:

YES. If adopted, it will give Chicago a measure of home rule and a modern court system. It will limit Cook County's representation in the State Senate as the federal Constitution limits state representation in the United States Senate. It will make possible changes in the law which are urgently needed, but which the present constitution forbids.

Roger Sherman, Chicago:

YES. Because it is a decided improvement upon the old and this is the real question before the people. While there are many improvements in the new from the old, those of greatest significance are: the

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »