PROCEEDINGS.

MR. PROVINE: He is my neighbor, at all events, and I wish to speak a word with reference to the practical side of this question. I am not aware that in the country we have felt the restraints of the present Constitution in an injurious way. I can remember very well, however, that when I was a student of law in Springfield prior to the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1870, that at that time there were no restrictions, no restraints upon the taxing power and that the people of his own city who were property owners felt that they were powerless in restraining the voting of indebtedness upon the municipality. I especially remember a statement of our former State Treasurer, William Butler, which was made in Gen. Palmer's office, that the next time the Assessor came around he would not acknowledge that he owned his residence property in the city, for the taxes were so high that he could not afford any longer to acknowledge that he owned the property. It seems to me overlooked though, with reference to this limitation, that the same property and the same persons are subject to taxation by different taxing powers. The little city in which I live is part of the State of Illinois which is a taxing power; it is also a part of the county of Christian, which is a taxing power; it is the city of Taylorville, which is a taxing power. That city is divided into school districts and over all we have a high school board of education that is a taxing power; the result is that the aggregate taxes for the assessed value of the property for years has been right at eight per cent.

Now under those circumstances the people are not anxious to remove any limitations that now exist upon the taxing power, and while it sounds very well to say, as my friend Judge Gross does, that it is entirely proper to trust the people, I believe we understand that pure democracies are the most dangerous of governments, and in a pure democracy you do trust the people absolutely; there is nothing

PROCEEDINGS.

between their will and the object that it has to effect, consequently we do not have pure democracy, but have representative governments. But that is not a sufficient check; it is deemed proper that we have Constitutional limitations to act as a check upon their powers.

It will not do always to trust the people who are se lected to represent either the State or the city or the county. And let me give you a little instance of that in our own city of Taylorville. Recently the City Council were determined to pass an ordinance providing that the public printing should only be submitted to newspapers that employed union labor, and that only union labor should be employed upon the streets of the city,-contracts should only be made with persons and contractors that employed union labor. The only way they could be defeated in the purpose was to take the decisions of the Supreme Court and read to those men, and that was scarcely sufficient to do it. had enough respect for the opinions of the to refrain from passing such ordinances. in the country there is a disposition to depart from the settled foundations of government, and we should be careful how we open the gates and open the doors and render it possible to change present conditions.

They scarcely Supreme Court So that I think

Now it is suggested that once every thirty years it seems is a proper time for amending the Constitution, or for holding a new Constitutional Convention. Now the only good reason that suggests itself to my mind, or possible reason for the advocacy of that, is that every generation should have its chance to tackle that question, to try its hand at that. But as has been well said here, institutions that have shown by the experience and by the operation of a third of a century that they are successful and founded upon a wise and proper basis should not be tampered with.

MR. SMALLEY: Mr. President: I have listened with some solicitation for a bill of particulars of the iniquities of the

PROCEEDINGS.

The objec

present Constitution,-I have failed to hear any. tion to our system of taxation in this city, having myself a little interest in those matters as a citizen and tax payer of this city, does not appeal to my mind so strongly. Here is a drainage system very nearly all paid for except our maturing bonds, and the canal all finished except some little extra work. Our township system is virtually wiped away. I do have, as a tax payer and a citizen-not only as a lawyer and a member of this Association-a very vital interest in not abandoning the limit of taxation of five per cent. Where a business man in the city of Chicago, Mr. President, is paying a tax of eight or ten per cent on the money which he actually has, it is a very serious problem, and that is what we are practically doing today. In the west town that is what some of us had to respond to last year, and we have an interest in this matter.

However, there is another reason it seems to me that has not come to the front. Look for the beneficiaries and we will usually find who is responsible for the situation. I am not sure that many of these trust corporations from New Jersey may not have had something to do with this move for a Constitutional Convention. Now these corporations having an interest in fictitious stock, in making money out of air, naturally would be a little solicitous over the article of the Constitution which limits, for instance, the issue of stock by railroads, that it must be for money paid, or for value received either in money, property or services. Now it is barely possible they would like to have that modified. They may wish to wipe away the glucose case by Constitutional amendment or by Constitutional modification and open the doors of this great city to what is running rampant in many of the States where they are not controlled, to watered stock, and so on. I have no idea though that any gentleman here advocates it for that reason, but the motive in some people for a Constitutional Convention is to get away from some of those magnificent decisions of the Supreme Court of this State.

PROCEEDINGS.

Where is the call from the people for a Constitutional Convention? I believe in the people; the people have always ruled in this country and always must. But where is the call from the people? As Judge Tuley said here a little while ago, and Judge Tuthill, where is the call from the people? Of course the people have a right to change their Constitution. All power rests in the people and can not be withdrawn under any Constitution that we may draw. Now if this were a call from the people of this State to do away with the limit of taxation or to do away with some of the rulings that have been made in the Constitution in regard to corporations, very well then, that power rests in the people, and if they desire to make that change they will do so, but I have failed to hear any call from the people. It can not be amended rapidly enough they say, but one amendment can be made at a time; that also could be amended; there is no reason why that could not be struck out of the Constitution.

As, we look around at our neighboring States,--Wisconsin since 1848, I think, has never had a new Constitution; nor the State of Minnesota since 1857, nor the State of Iowa since 1857. Neither has the State of Missouri since 1875, and their Constitution was only modified in slight particulars then. If there were a call in this State like that which came up in Missouri for a change in the Constitution of 1875 to the effect that no corporation shall issue stock except for money paid in of the full par value, or property actually received of the full value, which was the call which resulted in the Constitution of 1875, and was a call from the people-that should be heeded.

Now it may be that there is great demand here for the amendment to the Constitution or for a Convention, but it seems, if there were that demand, it would not be essential, Mr. President, that we discuss it here. But after all, let us not forget the forceful utterance of Lord Brougham-"the British Constitution, what is it? It is a man of integrity and in

PROCEEDINGS.

telligence upon the bench and twelve honest men in the box." MR. ZEISLER: When the motion of Judge Church will come up for action by the Association

PRESIDENT HOLDOM: We will decide that bye and bye. Make a motion that will be germane to the matter under discussion if you want to make a motion as to when that shall come up.

MR. ZEISLER: I say, when the motion of Judge Church will come up tomorrow for action, I shall, I regret to say, be about five hundred miles away from here; therefore I desire to offer a suggestion which will take only a minute.

PRESIDENT HOLDOM: We are pleased to hear from you. MR. ZEISLER: The resolution assumes that the action of this Association may have some influence upon the decision of the question as to whether there shall be a Constitutional Convention in this State or not. I am willing to assume the same thing. If this Association is to exert any influence upon the decision of that question I believe it ought to be better advised than it is at the present time, or than it will be tomorrow. A resolution of this sort ought to be taken into consideration most carefully. There are very few here among us who are prepared at this time, or who will be prepared tomorrow to speak advisedly as to whether there is really any necessity for a Constitutional Convention or not. For that reason, Mr. President, I beg now to offer a suggestion that this resolution of Judge Church be referred to a committee of five to be named by the President of the Association to take this matter under advisement and report to this Association at its next meeting in 1902. I may say that there will be no session of the legislature until January, 1903, so that if this Association expresses its opinion on that question in the summer of 1902 its advice to the people of the State of Illinois will come in ample time. To go off half-cocked, so to speak, tomorrow morning, when the Association was not advised that such a resolution would come before it and when the members of the