New-York tribune. [volume], October 29, 1915, Page 7, Image 7

About New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
WVERTISEMEM tDVERTISEMEVI WVKKTISEMEM MJVERTISEMENT.
GIVING HIS SPECIFIC REASONS FOR VOTING
AGAINST THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION
New York. Ortohrr 27th. 1015
? .; Root, Nrw York City. N. Y.i
In answer to jroui telegram of September f,t!
me to become a mecnbei of ? ( ommittee of ( iti/rns i
adoption of the nrw Constitution, 1 said that I wi
te sufficiently familiar with thr Constitution t
Of not I would br in fax or of its adoption: furtne
- thai I did not. at that time, know in what form it was t
whether in sections or as a whole. Sine?* that tin
;?ir ( ,.? til :' on has been submitted substantially as ? whol?
and I have turd. ,i- ,i layman, to makr as careful ? study of
My conclusion is that it should not be adopted. My reason
pecific, and are as follows:
? demand made on the people bjf th
1 * adopted mractically in whole o
een of the eighteen sections are submitted in on
vote and these ?ixtren questions arr the all important part of th?
Constitution. I can think of (nit two reasons for thr Conventioi
havine taken this course: Fir*t. that it had so little respect fo
thr intelligence of the voters of thi? State that it did not heliev.
them eapablr of wisely discriminating brtween the sixteen dif
ferrnt sections; or. Second, that it frarrd thr intelligrncr of th?
?' :s and rrali/rd that thry would discriminate and that man}
? :hr proposrd amrndmrnts, if submitted separately, would un
questional ly be rejected. Nrithrr reason is creditahle to th?
Convention. Whichever of the.te reason* existed, the fact is that ihr
leprived of the ? unquestioned right to teleei and rr
ta*tl proper, This right was grantrd the voter;
? Ohio in voting on their rerrntly revised Constitution, where
42 pi .- were submitted. 34 of which wrre adopted and
- ! It was granted to the people of New Hampshire,
where 4 proposition? were adopted and 6 rrirc ted. In the State
nn?- ti i;t thr Constitution was submittrd in bulk twicr. and
h time was rejected. In this State in 1 867 a new Constitution
- submitted in bulk, with the exception of the Judiciary article,
whiih was submitted separately. The Judiciary article was ac
ed and the Constitution rejected.
It seems clear to me that there is no answer to the serious
et tion to the manner of submitting the new Constitution. It
i fundamental weakness in the whole scheme. I appreciate
that in a great document like a State Constitution there has to be
a certain amount of five and take and that half a loaf is some
es better than no loaf at all, nranted always that the half loaf be
Why should a man who objects to the Conserva?
tion article, for example, but who favors the Short Ballot article,
In- forced to take the Conservation article in order to get the
Short Ballot article? illustration applies to many of the
In a stat? menl issued by the "Committee For the Adoption
institution," printed in Monday morning's papers, this
?-lure ,.f submitting the Constitution in bulk was sought to
le excused, and the Committee, among other things, said:
this might have bren the appropriate method if the Convention
had done nothing but suggest scattered changes on unrelated
1 lowevr, each important reform supplrmrnts and
r othrr reform."
OBVIOUSLY DISINGENUOUS.
1 cm understand how it might possibly be claimed that it
was necessary to submit together the executive and Budget
srticle. and pos-ihlv, even the Short Ballot with them. But what
ha- ? - group of articles to do with Judiciary, Conservation and
printing legislative debates? The attempted justification by the
Committee is obviously disingenuous.
The new Constitution provides for an increase in thr salaries
of the Legislature. You will remember, of course, that thtt was
tubrni'.'ed tu the profile m the form of a teparatr atnnulment m 1911
and defeated by a rote of VC7.000 in favor and 869,0*00 aqainst, de
9fiS? the ttrenuo'it etfrrrti of the bipartisan machine trt pa,* ?|< ]8
it not vicious, therefore, to submit it to the people so soon again
in luch manner that they cannot defeat it without also defeating
other proposals, some of which they might favor? In thr dis
CQMOnJ that are now going on even the strongest advocates of
the proposed Constitution admit that there are certain things in
it that might be objectionable but that we should adopt it be?
cause, on the whole, they claim it is an improvement on the ex
?ting Constitution. To my mind the reverse is true. It should
?ave been submitted section by section, in which event the
people could have taken what they approved and rejected what
they did not approve.
Hie two propositions submitted, separately, are the Taxa?
tion article and the Appo^ionment sections.
As to the Apportionment proposition, separately submitted,
it is simply a delusion and a snare. It maket no particular differ?
ence \n the apportionment which way the people vote on it, for if it it
?dopieti thtnni remain at they are, and if it it defeated thing? remain
u''.y the tame, but it should be remembered that tied up
with this Apportionrnrnt submission is the provision abolishing
under certain conditions the State [.numeration of its inhabitants
and authorizing apportionment to be made on the basis of a
federal census. The State enumeration has been one of our large
and urine? evs.try expenses, for the I-ederal Census is all that is
'"?'*'ess.try, and if the amendment abolishing State enumeration
were submitted srparatrly to the p?*ople it would unquestionably
pass By tying it up with the Apportionment amendment, how?
ever, the voters will be put in the position, if they vote for the
proportion, of apparently approving the present apportionment,
*nd if they vote against it, of apparently approving the continu?
?te of the present unnecessary and extravagant State Census.
In support of what I have said above on this subject. I
quote thr following from the debate when thr question of .sub?
mitting this article separately was before the Convention:
Bj Mr. Btirhettl "1 ask thr ('h*iniMl "I th. r,?niriiittee (Mi
( Ferions ) ?lint pearibk proeeM <>f reasoning r?-ij;nr. ?, or mifk*'s,s 'hat
. the ssssariuiiiil ikoaM >?- nbarittcd separate^ atoa ?i it ?- rejected
" le*rea the Apportionment arti;lr pricmlj ?v> it Ut In otli? r wor>h,
It 1? utterly Inslfrniflcanl ss I r sa the rr ?!? '"?<-? arbetlirf the prrsral
ameiitliii?-iit pending i adopted of rejected U it is attent?e it adopts
yrr irii'i the PS1I14 r.i'i i <i in tho pzittiag Conttittttisn, itnl if if il
re'. ?-. ' ?' tntsree it lesees He \ i Kb ? New, ef all tin
seetiotu of the whole inttrnment from bepisntng te end, I thsntd think
? . * .n?. to tsbmit separat sly, in.:-mri. n. if /? .
ssakt 'he slightest diferenet which wag ." i ;<?'?? b
Mr. Parsons (( hairm.m of ihr Committee): "/
remit of the vote it eorreetla ttated bs Mr, Braelcett."
lin* Convention went Inrougn thr farce of wbmitting In
Apportionment article separately and of ?attempting to make t!i
people think that it was so important that they should Rive the
especial thought and attention to it and vote on il leparatel]
when, as a matter of fact, it does not make a rap's different.
in the apportionment which way they vote. While this farcie
question is being submitted separately, the people are der.ie
the right, unquestionably theirs, to vote separately and indf
pendently on the great articles covering changes in reorganiza
tion of the Judiciary, Conservation, Powers of the Governoi
Home Rule for Cities, Re-arrangement of all the Department
of the State, and other important questions, where the result o
their vote would be of real importance to them.
This sort of treatment of the voters is an outrag
that ought to be resetted by ihe people at the polls.
SHORT BALLOT
I personally regard this as such ? long ?hort ballot as to b
inefficient It does nothing except in R very slight way r?BCOgniz<
the theory of a short ballot. Ihe only real short ballot recog
nized by the Convention is in the method of submitting the Con
stitution to the voters. ihat is a short ballot with a vengeance
I here is no compromise about th.tt.
JUDICIARY.
1 here are so many changes in the Judiciary article, anrl the**
are of such far-reaching effect, that, in my judgment, it ?i im
possible for the people to comprehend the import.ince Of thesr
changes in the very short time they have been given in which t?
consider them. A - A. ma objection to the article it thoi it putt tin
Jadiciarn more into the practical politict of ihe State than it hat ? vei
??mi before, -.. ? \ ? xjrett thottld be made in exactly thr op
direction. To give judges the power to appoint subord?nate
judges, in my judgment, is all wrong. if? give them, as the
new Constitution proposes, power without limit to appoint a?
many judges as they desire under the name of supreme ( ourl
Commissioners" is conferring on them a patronage that is bad iti
principle and sure to bring the court into politics. If the ap?
pointive principle is to be estai,littied in our Constitution, it
would be much safer to leave it with the Governor than tritt)
the judges.
POV/ER OF THE GOVERiNOR AND BUDGET.
In the matter of giving the Governor nu-ie and broader
power, I believe there are mi-takes of such a serious < har.n ter
that the proposal in this respect will prove more harmful than
beneficial. I believe thoroughly in a propel billiget system, but
under our plan of electing a Governor for two years, gr.intr-d
that there is a change every two years, we would get an inde?
pendent responsible budget system but every other year. I-or.
if the Governor were to be elected this year and take office on the
1st of January, the budget for him would he made up by the de
partment heads that were going out with the outgoing Governor.
1 he next year the new Governor and his department heads could
make up their own budget, but the following year he in turn
would make up the budget for the next incoming Governor.
This certainly provides ? beautiful opportunity for outgoing
Governors of different political parties to play politics with the
efficiency of the State departments at the expense of incoming
Governors and vice versa.
No large business concern could obtain anything like rea?
sonable efficiency under this method of doing business, and, in
my judgment, no State with such vast administrative interests
as ours can do so either.
The plan by whit h the Caovernor makes up his budget and
sends it in is not by any means free from legislative influence,
because the Legislature has the rii'lit after it passes on the Gov?
ernor's recommendations to initiate its own bills and pass them
for submission to the Governor. This opens up a vast field of
dicker and trade between the Legislature and the Governor,
and between the "invisible government" and both. In tins con?
nection, the restoration to the <? nyemor of the power to appoint mem
hers of the Legit la ture tu ant office within hit gift it vicions to thr
last degree and thorough!;/ reactionary, I he Governor of this State
had this power one hundred years ago, and it was taken away
by the Constitution in 1821 because of its great ahuse. In the
discussion on this subject in the < onvention ol I 82 ! that adopted
the section which is now sought to be repealed, Mr. Williams, a
delegate, said:
"On th?- fxuiiilni.ti.il) cl the ?abject, ?t will be found ttut nineteen
nut of tarnt*/ of these tigsoes hntt been llled oui of the Legislatun
fr?.m year to y?;ir. It hi.? been continued uri.il the people have ex
pressed tt?> ir disapprobation from on part of .in- SI its to the other,
iinil sJtaSongn the* Imve ?elected In m.iny in?t?iit?-? tit mid suitable
candidat?-? l<>r nfli?.-, \r\, Inairmifh n* they were taken from the Li eis
liittire, the] hi?e been considered Improper leleetloos. \n Ideo it
entertained that th.- Legislature ha i-.n retairred ntMenrirnl !<? the
appointment ??.At.r for '.in- promotion "i ? ? ?' the ad?
? sneetm nt ?>t indi? Idusli In thai tod] "
Another delegate, Mr. B.icon. s.ud:
??Wh? n we *???-. ss are haire dots* it no imnoti period, mare thm
?nil-third of tin- Leg! latlvc body retaralng lame ?..'h th.?r ccaae&ii
lions m tin ir BtxketS) Use *?>?-????!?- v.ii| inrvltabli dra?. fi
unkind Inferencea.'*
(Mr. Bacon w.is evnlently a very polite gentleman.)
POWER TO APPOINT MEMBERS OF LEGISLAT?
URE TO OFFICE.
In this ? onnection, it is extremely important to note that the
proposed ? ?institution not only restores to the Governor the
power to appoint members of the Legislature to office, bal there
it m the proposed new Conttitation nothing whatever to prevent a>\
Atieetbtgnten or a Senator being appointed /??/ the Gonjernne a? head
A (in. "i lit* Slut. Department? and still rrmatnim] i meml^r ui the
Legislature, sittunj in that body which util adopt a budjet ?or hit
a:cn department, I consider giving the Governor such power e
this tantamount to manufacturing a new and valuable currenc
With whi? h the Govrrnor ?an buy mrmbrrs of the Legislatur
for any purpose he desires. On the one hand it legalizes briber
by the Governor; on the other hand it enables influential men
hers of the Legislature to browbeat the Governor into appointai
them to important offices in order to put through his measure!
on all hands it
REINFORCES 'INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT" II
THE MOST SINISTER POSSIBLE FORM.
I his provision is sM vi? ?0us that if it were submittrd to th
people by itself, it would not have thr ghost of a show of brin
adopted, and thr attempt ij clearly bring made to force it
adoption by coupling it up with other mrasures that claim re
spectability.
Can the voters of the State afford to pay such a price a
this, even to obtain the advantages which the advocates of th
new Constitution claim for it?
STATE PRINTING.
The Constitution provides that everything said in all th?
debates of the Legislature shall hereafter be printed each day ii
pamphlet form similar to the Congressional Record at Washing
ton. Iliis will cost many thousands of dollars a year. On it:
f..< e, a looks lik- an innocent provision. Some people migh
think it a good thing; ' ? it-, to be considered, hotwever, m conned tn
-. and une nf these thing? i? iha' tht
pria tu e i>i the State Board of Printing ha? been to confine State print
ingto.il I tntg printing firm?. The legislative investigation ol
two or three years ago and the Roosevelt-Barnes libel suit clearly
showed that the State printing is so conducted as to be a val?
uable perquisite for the Albany bipartisan printing ring. Th<
scandals already developed in connection with State printing
have long cried out for the establishment of a State Printing De?
partment, and under such conditions to multiply the amount of
State printing without the establishment of a State Printing De
p irtmenl won: ! seem to be a grave mistake
If this question of printing the daily speeches of members
of the Lcridature had been submitted as a separate question to
voters, dot s any one think they would adopt it?
STATE DEPARTMENTS.
The idea of consolidating a great number of departments
into a few large departments I thoroughly brlieve in, but the
manner in which it has been done is open to grave criticism.
1 his is a matter of such vast and far-reaching importance that
before adoption it should be studied by a committee of experts
and recommended to the people as a carefully thought out,
practical and efficient M heme of administering the State's affairs.
I he plan, M submitted, is intended to be made copper-fastened
for twenty years. The proposed Constitution specifically takes
away from the Legislature the power to create a single other
department, for it specifically says: "No new department shall
be created hereafter. Any bureau, board, commission or office
hereafter created shall be placed in one of the departments
enumerated in this article."
ABOLISHES MARKET DEPARTMENT.
Therefore in the matter of a Department of Markets thr
proposed Constitution not only abolishes the recently created
Department o? Marketa, but prohibits the Legislature from treat
?H ? .1 new i ne As a Department of Markets is not created as
one of the leventeen departments or even indirectly referred to,
the only possible way in the future to have anything that would
resemble a Department of Markets would be to have it created
as a bureau of one of the seventeen existing departments. This
means that it would be a very subordinate affair,?in the hands
of an assistant without direct responsibility, publicity or control,
without any opportunity to obtain recognition for his work in
behaif of the people if it were good, or criticism from the people
if it were poor,?
THE PRECISE POSITION IN WHICH MANY DEAL?
ERS IN FOODSTUFFS DESIRE TO HAVE
THE MARKETS PLACED.
It so happens that last year Mayor Mitchrl appointrd a
Committi.n Food Supply for New York City, of which com
i.utter I have bren chairman. A great deal of study has bren
given to the question of food supply and markets by this com?
mittee, and it was found that the high cost of food supplies in
New Vor!. City does not arise from lack of supply in the country.
for, as most tanners up the State know, vast quantities of
produce are raised by them every year for which they are not
able to find a market at a sufficiently high price to pay for
gathering.
THE HIGH PRICE OF FOODSTUFFS TO THE PEO?
PLE OF OUR CITY IS AN INCREASINGLY
SERIOUS PROBLEM.
It is largely occasioned because the supplies are controlled
directly or indirectly by traders in New York who bring them
into the city and distribute them. In running this matter down
last Winter and in urging a market commission that would have
a central head and be responsible to the public, a commission
that could attempt to equalize the small prices obtained by thr
farrnrr up State and the high prices paid by the consumrr in
thr ? lty,
THE PROPOSITION WAS MADE TO ME,
as Chairman of the Food Supply Committee, that if we would
give up the idea of a Market Department with a centralized and
responsible head the market people would favor a sub-depart?
ment under one of the present existing departments of govern?
ment in the City of New York in charge of a Bureau Chief or
an assistant.
[he proposition was rejected, of course, as it would have
played right into the hands of the very men who made the sug
gestion, and directly against the interests of the farmers of the
?tate and thr consumers of the cities.
These men want an obscure department, in charge of a
rinall calibre mr.n, with small power and away from the lime?
light, with whom they can deal; they are unalterably opposed
to a man of sufficient calibre and occupying a position with suf?
ficient power and publicity to enable him to serve the public as
he should.
Knowing 'his situation as intimately as 1 do from personal
contact, I am amazed and disturbed t<^ see that thr proposed
Constitution lit" r;.:ht into thr scheme of thrse very mr.n as they
outhnrd it to me.
THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TAKES AWAY
FROM THE LEGISLATURE THE POWER EVER
TO CREATE A GREAT, ALL-POWERFUL
DEPARTMENT OF MARKETS
that could be of inrstimablr value to producer and ? onsumer
alike; all that the Legislature could do would be to place our
great marketing problem m the hands of a subordinate of some
other department.
The proposed Constitu? ion is careful to perpetuate the Pub?
lic Servier Commisrion, created to regulate the transportation
affairs of the people; yet only about 10 per cent, of the average
man's income goes for transportation. The proposed Constitu?
tion not only abolishes what we now have in the v/ay of a State
Market Deportment, bul actually prohibits the establishment of
such a department in the future; yet about 40 per cent, of the
average man's income goes for food.
HIGH COST OF LIVING.
Perhaps the most burning question of the day, particularly
in this great city ?it New York, is the high cost of living. We
will never get anywhere in the solution of it until we have a
Market Department in this State that is recognized as such and
that is given the dignity of a department with all the power
necessary to serve the producers on our farms and the consumers
in our cities. In view of my experience in this matter. I regard
the omission to create a Department of Market* and the pro?
vision prohibiting the Legislature from hereafter creating one as
so detrimental to the people of the State that I would vote
against the adoption of the ?Constitution for this i! for no ether
reason.
CONSERVATION
I regard the entire scheme of conservation as outlined in the
proposed Constitution as pernicious and thoroughly objection?
able. We have until recently had a thrrr-heatled commission,
and. in my judgment, one of the very best things Governor
Whitman has done and for which he deserves great ? redit is
the cstabb'-hment of the C onservation Department in the hands
of one Commissioner and the securing of Mr. Pratt, of Brooklyn,
as the t ommissioner. I 1?re we have centralized power, re?
sponsibility anci a business man who is willing to perform publi :
service,_precisely the programme of administration which all
the advocates of the prono 1er! Constitution < laim is the objective
of the entire Constitutional scheme; yet in this matter of conser?
vation, exactly the opposite course has been taken. A commis?
sion of nine men is to be set up. selected by the Governor, one
from each of the nine Judicial districts of the State. They are
to receive no compensation, but are to employ a suprnntrndent
on a salary to conduct the a.T lirs of the department. Diese nine
men, living as thry will in nine diffrrrnt parti; of the State, wil
have very Night opportunity to grt together often enough or fot
suficiently long prn-u! i at a time to under?tand thr vast prob?
lem of conservation in this State. FT?e result will I.e. as it always
has hern in such ?ases, that die hired man will actually <fo the
wor' Who will know who this man is^ Hr will have no pride
of place, no responsibility to the people, and will be lar re
moved from them. Does any one mpposfi. for instance, that a
man like Mr Pratt would accept the position of ?uperintrndrnt ?
If the Commission dors anything to which thr people object
which one of the nine is going to he responsible?
In short, in phce of centralizing power and placing it where
the people CM out their finder on it, the new Constitution
broadly ?cotters it .and places such executive power as there is in
the hr.ndf, of a superintendent.
One provision prohil its the Commission from selling any
wood that It may cut in its forestry work. I happen to be fairly
familiar with fore-try work and know that mm h of the wood
tl'.tt is properly cut has a marketable value. If this nine headed
commission can I ? SO greatly trusted, as we are told it can be,
why not give it the power to se'l any wood that ? an properly
be sold and 'urn the money into the State treasury ?) l tutet lite*
present i rOVts'tO* they are prevent, ! from selling it, hut the g arc niil
prevented from giving it swat If they are dishonest and there
fore should not be entrusted with the power to sell, why should
they be entrusted with the power to give it away?
CURTAILS FISH SUPPLY.
Among the other serious objections to the Conservation
programme is the exception of "migratory fish of the sea" from
the jurisdiction of the Commission. I his of course means to a
large extent the sea fish in and about the waters of the City of
New York This ag*in brings up my own experience of the past
year on the Mayor's Food Supply Committee, where it wsj
found that the lack of supervision and control of this industry
causes great destruction of perfectly good sea food and to a con?
siderable extent accounts for the high price of such sea food as
we get. To deny to the Conservation Commission this extremely
important function is, in my judgment, not only a great mistake?
but an insurmountable impediment to any reforms necesssury to
provide New York City with a suitable supply of sea food at
proper prices.
Th? exception was a: twedlg plmt'tti ?n the proposed article at
the instance of the hottg ?s'anil tit h interests, for Mr. I'clletreau, a
delegate from Suffolk County, saut tlur,n/j the debate on a motion Id
strike out the exception:
"This Is i matter of prive importance to the people of my locality.
islde from viewing it in h liro.id ??rid State s?us.-, viewing It from nit
own personal confort, if clown in tat* county, Suffolk, it is learn??! that
the suit sratrr fisheries hud been by constitutional precision placed un?
der tin Coassrvattoa D?partage?t, wh>, I will have the entire -.?it water
fi^h industry after BSC with ,? ?harp stick. I won't dare to go home."
liiere are various defects in the proposed Constitution. I
doubt if a layman could find them all, for there is so much
vagueness about so many provisions and one is put to the
necessity not f>nly of studying the new Constitution but the old
Constitution, the laws of the State and the practices of the
Legislature in order to reach anything resembling an intelligent
understanding of the matter. In my judgment the reasons
stated above are ample to convince any thoughtful voter that it
is his duty to vote against the adoption of the Constitution aa
submitted.
If this proposed Constitution is rejected, then automatically
under the old Constitution a new Convention may be elected to
assemble in 1917. Broadly speaking, if the proposed revision
fails of adoption the time und money spent on it will not have
been in vain, for it has aroused a State-wide discussion that has
been of grrat educational value and we will approach the whole
subject another year better equipped to deal with the great prob?
lem of really representative and efficient government which is
facing us for solution. In view of the discussion since the Con?
stitutional Convention adjourned another Convention at least
would not dare to submit a Constitution in block. Public opinion
would compel its submission article by article.
Very truly yours, ^
GEO. W. PER1CIN5, 'k