when the convention itself gave a willing tribute to the administration of Mr. Jefferson.

Some omissions of the doings of the convention are worthy of remark, as contrasted with what many people think the work of supererogation. First no attempt was made to prevent [in the Constitution of 1802] the existence of banks; for the state was then in the midst of the hard-money millennium! Next we find nothing about repeal or prohibitions on credit; or restriction on corporations; for it never entered their heads that commercial corporations for beneficial purposes could be such awful creatures as they are now represented to be. The old convention seemed to think the people were able to govern themselves.

The convention adjourned March 10, 1851, after having been in session 163 days. The vote on adoption was 76 to 14 with two Democrats refusing to vote. All the negative votes were cast by Whigs except that cast by Mr. Gray of Lake County, who was a Free Democrat. Three days later (March 13) the Cleveland Evening Herald printed the Constitution in full. Commenting editorially it says:

It is of reasonable length, full and plain in its provisions, and well considered and well arranged by its authors, who embraced many of the wisest and soundest men of the state.

Many changes from the present Constitution are proposed, most of them, we think, from a hasty examination, for the better. As a whole the new Constitution strikes us favorably.

The Cleveland Evening Herald [March 24, 1851] contains the following:

Occasionally a Locofoco journal has gone into rhapsody over it. but the radical journals of that

party declare it is not all they wish, but something better than the old one.

Speaking further it says the Constitution as a whole is but feebly commended by the Whig press and

That the Free Soil journals approve and disapprove of portions. The great mass of the people of Ohio manifested very little interest in the call for a constitutional convention. The Constitution will doubtless be adopted, but without even being read by one-half the voters of the state.

During the next two weeks the Whigs had time to think it over and had come to the conclusion that the new Constitution was so full of defects that it ought to be defeated. The Cleveland Evening Herald, which had said March 13, that "the new Constitution strikes us favorably," said under date of April 7: We cannot by our vote consent to change it [the old Constitution] except for one which we think decidedly better as a whole.

The Evening Herald then commends certain things in the new Constitution, such as

The biennial election of officers, biennial sessions of the legislature, a judiciary system equal to the wants of the state, codification of the laws and simplification of practice; equal taxation of property, banks and corporations; securing the inviolability of state credit.

It then condemns

The withholding the credit of the state from any and all public improvements; the denial of the citizens of any county, city, town, or township the right to vote subscriptions of stock to public works they may deem necessary; prohibiting the general assembly from passing any special act conferring corporate powers; pro

viding that corporations may be formed under general laws, but that all such laws may, from time to time be altered or repealed, thus virtually cutting off all charters and corporations; requiring a majority of all members elected to the legislature to enact a law; requiring that the legislative elections shall be viva voce; creating new offices and increasing the expense of government; neglecting to provide for single legislative districts, thus securing political parties and populous counties undue weight and influence in the general assembly; restricting many rights long enjoyed by the people; and tying the hands of future legislators as though all wisdom was embodied in the new Constitution.

These things are condemned as "too anti-Republican," and the further statement is made that "as a whole on 'second thought' we much prefer the old to the new, and shall vote to reject."

Under date of June 3 the Herald again urges the defeat of the new Constitution. In addition to the things condemned April 7, it now opposes its adoption because of "political gerrymandering" in senatorial districts; because of additional expense for judges; because it "favors repudiation and the breach of public faith in the shape of taxing state and United States stocks;" because it gives the legislature contingent power of taxing graveyards, meeting houses, and benevolent institutions." The editorial closes with,

Reject, then, the incubus of the new Constitution, and all will be well with our beloved state.

Ohio State Journal [Whig], June 24, 1851:

We are as well satisfied to-day as we have been at any former period that the restrictions on the subject of improvement will be found disastrous to the best interests of the state and that public opinion will demand a change in that respect. We know that the rejection of the single legislative district system and the accumulation of

political influence in one or two large counties will be. found extremely obnoxious, and that this feature will be changed.

The real reforms that are introduced, the election of officers by the people, and the loss of patronage and power to the legislature (which patronage has been the cause of intrigues, if not corruption) will no doubt be found beneficial. The restrictions upon corporations for public improvement - the improper attempts to interfere with public stocks - the refusal to adopt the singular legislative district system - the unfair and partizan apportionment, etc., will be found impolitic, unwise, and not fit to be made..

NEWSPAPER COMMENTS ON THE PRO

POSED CONSTITUTION OF 1874

The Cleveland Leader [Republican] of August 12, 1874: The case seems to be that the anti-license people, fearing that the license clause may carry, are determined to sacrifice the Constitution and all for the sake of defeating the license clause. In other words, they propose to kill it twice, once by rejecting the clause itself and again by defeating the Constitution without the adoption of which the license clause cannot become a law. This seems to us unnecessarily puerile and boyish.

The Cincinnati Telegraph [Catholic] a few days before the election contained the following:

The duty of all Catholics of this state on the day of voting is plain and cannot be ignored without moral delinquency and civil disgrace. In full and unbroken ranks they must record their protest against a godless system of education by voting against a Constitution that would fasten anew upon them the hands of gigantic robbery.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer of August 17, 1874:

Indeed the proposed new Constitution has to do with so much that is complex and beyond the scope of the popular information that the work of the convention, as a whole, will hardly be voted on intelligently. A great many people do not trouble themselves about such