PROCEEDINGS.

MR. MOSES: No, he was the John Marshall orator at Cleveland, and at the centennial of the constitution of Philadelphia in 1887 he was the orator, and also at the Congress of Religions at Chicago during the World's Fair.

PRESIDENT HOLDOM: There were a good many orators at the World's Congress of Religions of varied characters. But Mr. Carson really is a man of great talent as an orator and he is a very good lawyer, and I am quite sure that if you gentlemen all knew that, and the other members of the Association are made acquainted with it, they will come out here in sufficient numbers to be entertained themselves and to show respect and appreciation of his journeying here.

I now call upon Mr. Keithley to speak in the negative upon the question under discussion.

MR. KEITHLEY: I did not understand until I came into this room that I was to open the discussion, and I can only give utterance to the thoughts that have come to my mind in the short space of time that has intervened since mention of the matter was made to me. The adoption of a constitution or the change of a constitution is a matter that a lawyer in active practice has seldom any occasion to consider. It is a rare thing, I think, that questions that entertain a lawyer or that engage a lawyer, go back that far. I would like to say at the outset that I believe that we have all the constitution we need, and if there is any fault to be found along those lines, we have a little too much constitution. The government from which we sprung and to which we look back with a great deal of pride, as I understand it-England-has no written constitution. Our law is taken from the English Common Law, and they have prospered in a marked degree without any written constitution whatever. The national government, which exists under a grant of power, adopted its constitution little more than a hundred years ago, and there have been but a very few

PROCEEDINGS.

changes in that document since. At the first meeting of Congress, as I remember, after the adoption of the national constitution, a number of amendments were proposed and adopted, some ten or eleven. Shortly following that two or three other amendments were adopted. The government existed under that constitution with those amendments until the time of the war. The questions growing out of the war gave rise to the necessity for a change in the constitution and such changes were made as to meet only those changed conditions. Those changes were made, as I remember, somewhere in the sixties, perhaps as late as the seventies, I do not remember. That was over thirty years ago; the government has grown, the national government; it is taking care of its own domestic affairs, it has reached out beyond, clear beyond what was ever expected of it, until now it is administering the affairs not only of its original territory but away out in the islands of the seas, and I do not believe there is any fault now found with the constitution, that is, I mean to say, but what we have constitution enough. (Applause.)

Our State has had, as I remember it, two constitutions, that is, at the time the State came into the Union in 1818, a constitution was adopted as I remember, and another one adopted in 1848 making some changes, and another one about 1870, making some farther changes and that, as I remember, is the constitution that is now in force. Now let me say, gentlemen, that we have prospered wonderfully under the constitution as it exists, and I do not know of any person who is prosperous or thrifty who is agitating very strongly a change in the constitution. As mentioned by the gentleman who spoke in the affirmative of the proposition, it is a dangerous thing to meddle with, the constitution. If the constitutional convention could be composed of members of the Illinois State Bar Association, I may say that I know that no harm could result from a change, but

PROCEEDINGS.

let me say to you, you must recognize the fact that any change proposed will not be made by the members of the State Bar Association, and not many members of the State Bar Association will be members of that constitutional convention. I am a little afraid that those behind the movement—that is, I am referring now to Cook county—are people who have a motive in view, who have some axe to grind. You will find the agitator who is wanting to change the constitution; you will find the crank who wants to change the constitution; the man who does not want to work will want to change the constitution; the man who has a half dozen wheels in his head will want to change the constitution, and it will be impossible, in my judgment, to make any change in our constitution without recognizing, at least to some extent, these people who have these fads upon given questions.

I have an idea that there will be some who propose a change in the constitution limiting the hours of a day's labor, and an idea that some who propose a change in the constitution will wish to limit the price of this or that commodity. I have no doubt there will be some changes made or suggested by persons who will want to advance the interests of some particular society. I do not believe, gentlemen, that any person who has the interest of the State at heart and I am going to come to Cook county presentlycan be serious in proposing a change in the constitution.

Now I know that the conditions in Cook county are quite different from the conditions elsewhere. The city of Chicago has developed in a wonderful degree, it has a greater extent of territory, and it has of course increased numerically, and the conditions which existed when this constitution was adopted are quite different from what they are now, but I believe it is possible to meet the changed conditions without changing the constitution. I believe it is possible under the present constitution to seek and procure

PROCEEDINGS.

such changes as may relate to Cook county alone and not affect the other portions of the State. I know that you have your township organizations here, and I know that you have no use for them. I know that you have some other things here that you have perhaps no use for; perhaps you would be a great deal better off without them.

If we could

have a constitutional convention limiting its effect to Cook county alone, and have the subjects proposed by the gentleman who first spoke, I do not believe anybody would oppose it.

But the danger is, as I have suggested,--the gettng beyond those questions, getting into the realm of theory, getting beyond the field of active practice and active utility. Now the constitution as it exists, as I recall it, provides for a change at every session of the legislature, I believe only one change is permitted. I should presume that if Cook county would make a proper effort it could bring about those changes that are needed bere by an application to the legislature to make those changes that it needs most. The gentleman says Springfield has always treated them kindly, -that is my recollection of the matter. When the legislature sees the needs of Cook county, sees the needs of a change in the constitution so far as it affects Cook county, I have never known of its denial of any request. I know when the World's Fair was held here in 1893 it was proposed that a change be made. It was to enable Cook county, or the city of Chicago, I do not remember which, to have a larger taxing power; that change was made, the constitution was changed, the city or county, I do not remember which it was, availed itself of the privilege and the whole State was magnified and glorified by the change.

Now I have heard some question, some suggestion with reference to change, where I live, and I have seen some mention of it in the newspapers, that it is desired to make a change for the purpose of enabling the municipalities to

PROCEEDINGS.

levy a higher rate of taxaton. I do not believe that any property owner is very serious when he proposes a change of that character. I have an idea that the tax payer is perfectly satisfied with that; if there is any change to be made along those lines I am satisfied that the tax payer would propose a limitation upon the power. And I do not care, gentlemen, to what extent you extend this limit, municipal affairs being governed as they are, the cities will every one of them be indebted to the limit. Now it is five per cent as I remember; you change it to ten and they will consume all of the property. They say you can not exist,— I say you can. I say there is enough money for municipal purposes, and that is by taxing the various franchises, taxing those things, those privileges; raise your money that way and it relieves the people and supplies the needs. The great trouble is that in all of these municipal affairs there is never any reduction of anything, no reduction of the offices; on the other hand there is always a creation of them, a multiplication of them. Never any reduction in the salaries, there is always an increase in the salaries, and I am inclined to believe that the effect of a change in the constitution would be the creation of additional offices, and enlargement of the salaries in many instances; and I do not believe the people care, those who pay the taxes, to pay a great deal more taxes than they now pay. Now I know it makes the tax payer hustle pretty hard to meet the taxes in the spring in the municipalities.

Now I think there is nothing wrong with our constitu tion as it exists. I think the Supreme Court has obviated many of the matters they thought to be objectionable, and I believe we are getting now so that we can somewhat understand our constitution, that is, some of us do, or think we do, and I know every change along the lines proposed will result in confusion; the time of the court will be occupied in construing the constitution again. Gentlemen, see how