PROCEEDINGS.

vanced here has been the necessities of Chicago, and perhaps other municipalities, to have the constitutional limitation upon taxation raised. You may argue very strongly that Chicago ought to have a new constitution, but that does not extend to the State by any reasonable argument. It seems to me that the consideration of the question as to whether we should have a new constitution is a very grave one. This State has existed a little more than eighty years and within that time we have laid down three times the fundamental principles upon which this State should be governed, we have had three constitutions. The constitution under which the United States is governed has been in force nearly one hundred and twenty-five years. I think the reason why that has lived so long, and the reason why it is so good is not because the men that made it were so much wiser and so much better than the men who have made the constitutions of the State of Illinois, but because at the time they made that constitution there was a feeling which was expressed by one of them that if they did not hang together they would hang separately; that there was a grave crisis to be faced which they did face, and on that occasion and in that crisis they eliminated those personal and private interests which in the formation of a constitution at this time would be forced upon the people, and only fixed those things as constitutional principles which were of deep importance to the government at that time, and to that crisis. That very serious crisis was faced at the time they made that constitution. How many years they were in making it, what labor and thought they went through to make it an enduring thing! The very fact that a crisis existed and those difficulties were before them enabled them to make a constitution which has lived, and which lives today as fresh as it was the day when it came from the pen of the man who wrote it.

There is not a single, solitary argument, it seems to me,'

PROCEEDINGS.

in favor of a constitutional convention at this time. If there is any constitution to be presented to the people, any modification to be made, it would simply be along the line of increasing the opportunity of governing bodies to tax the people, and that would be the only line along which the liberties of the taxing power would be extended. The people would unquestionably lose if a new constitution were to be forced upon them, and as Judge Tuley has said, as for governing ourselves, under a new constitution we wouldn't govern ourselves half as much as we think we are governing ourselves now. If we had, as Judge Tuley has said, a little more common honesty, so that one man in a community should be taxed like another, so that all these mortgages which go upon record and are taken in the name of John Smith instead of in the name of John Jones, to whom they belong, would be taxed and the tax realized from them, there would be a great deal more of equality of taxation and not nearly so much necessity for amending the constitution of the State of Illinois to enable Chicago and other municipalities to raise the taxes which they seem to think they

need.

We have in our taxing scheme things that are utterly silly; every lawyer that practices at this bar, and every citizen of the State of Illinois knows that there are millions of dollars in every community that escape taxation altogether; they don't bear the equal burden with the poor man; they are not reached by the assessor nor by the Board of Review at all, and if those things were gone into, if those things were looked into, if the taxation of all the property in the community was accomplished and reached, the necessity for changing this law to increase the limit above five per cent as it now exists, would not at all be apparent in my opinion. It seems to me the constitution of the State ought to be something the people can live by through a series of years. It ought not to be like a coat, put on and off at the end of a week if it does not fit just exactly where it ought to. If it rubs under the arms or is a little short in the

PROCEEDINGS.

skirts, we ought to conform ourselves to it. As Judge Tuley said, we have got an excellent constitution if we would only read it and find out what is in it. The public sentiment and private sentiment and every other sentiment nowadays seems to be to look to a change of the law, to the enactment of new laws for the remedy of every ill which we feel that we are subject to. We are filling our statute books with laws at every session of the legislature to correct evils; we do not depend upon the common honesty of people in our own communities to correct one another. It is a mistaken idea to think that every time we want to get some sort of benefit or help in some way, that all we have to do is to go to the legislature or to the people to change the constitution, to get any relief. What we want, as Judge Tuley says, is a little common honesty to make us take care of ourselves day by day and not rely upon the legislature to relieve all the ills that we run up against, or upon the people to modify the constitution every time that it binds a little bit in some place. We ought to conform our lives and our habits to the constitution as it is. The people have made great progress under our constitution and the chances are it is a great deal better and more for the people's interests than any constitution in this state at this time or any future time.

MR. MOSES: We have a record here which will be printed; I do not wish that record to show by my silence, that what our friend Judge Tuley has said about my not having read the constitution of the State before some few months ago, is exactly true. It is true, however, that as a purely academic question I favored the calling of a constitutional convention, having in mind the march of improvement for the last thirty years, and differing from a great many gentlemen who have spoken here today, and also believing that we might improve the constitution in a great many instances, although such improvements are not absolutely necessary. When I was called upon by Judge Tuley to give that matter attention and consideration I did sit

PROCEEDINGS.

down and for the first time examined the constitution for the purpose of picking flaws in it, and I found it was a very difficult task, exceedingly difficult. Nor do I wish by my silence to be understood as saying there is nothing to do at all in the way of changing the constitution of the State. I would pass a constitutional provision, if I had the power -and the whole matter after all is a matter of discussion before the people-to take away the power of the General Assembly to vote such bills as the Allen Bill by a pure majority; and if there is any danger in the aggregation of capital which is so much spoken of here and about which there is so much thought, there is a great danger in letting the General Assembly deal out these vast powers by a bare majority. There is another thing, and I shall have done when I have said that; we can amend the constitution of the State by one amendment, and the wise heads have found out that that amendment may be extremely long and wide and deep. Not simply one particular provision of three lines, but fifty lines, one hundred lines, covering one whole subject matter, and I want, as a citizen of this State, if I have the pleasure of living twenty years longer, to give opportunity to the city of Chicago to elect decent representatives, send them to Springfield and give them the opportunity of voting these amendments. The power of the corporation has been at Springfield at the last session for the purpose of preventing the adoption of these single provisions; it will appear again and the only escape for all these evils is that the power of the State of Illinois will so awaken the public conscience as to compel the citizens to look to the political elements and compel them to put decent representatives in the legislative hall.

JUDGE GROSs: Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Association:

I had the pleasure of listening to Mr. Heckman, Mr. Keithley and Judge Tuley in what they had to say respecting

PROCEEDINGS.

the advisability of calling a constitutional convention; and the thought that most strongly impressed me was, the fear expressed that the people of Illinois could not be trusted to protect themselves against the designing machinations of aggregated capital on the one hand, and socialism on the other; of scheming politicians on the one side, and cranks and fool reformers on the other; and I have been made to wonder if this pessimistic view was well grounded-if, indeed, the time. had come which Mr. Lincoln in his second memorable inaugural fervently hoped might never come, when government of the people, by the people and for the people should perish from the earth.

For my part I have little sympathy with this dolorous apprehension, and have no fear of the people. They have been put to the test of trial many times, and never at any time, or under any circumstances, in this country, since constitutional government by the people and for them became an established fact, have they in any degree failed to save and protect their own best interests along the recognized lines of popular government. And as for the people of this State, with whose legal history I am somewhat familiar, and of whose development under both the constitutions of 1848 and 1870 I have some personal knowledge, I want to say, they have my unbounded confidence; and time has only confirmed my early teaching, that he who would be or hoped to be of use to his time and generation must needs keep in close touch with the people; that their voice and power, once spoken or exerted, is not only most potent but is the expression of the highest wisdom.

This fear of the people, should an opportunity be afforded them to come together in constitutional convention, is attempted to be supported by the statement that now, at this time, no well grounded hope can be entertained that another body of men could be gotten together at all the equal in intelligence, wisdom and state-craft of that