The evening world. Newspaper, October 29, 1915, Page 10

ACVERTOEMENT —— MOVEAT Ewen? . ¥ TTER TO ApvEerTOEwENT ADVERTIORWENT ELIHU ROOT BY GEO. W. PERKINS CIVING HIS SPECIFIC REASONS FOR VOTING ‘EVENING WORLD, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29, 19 ADvEerTeeMENT AOgteTieewenT a o — — _ — J. ADVERTIORWENT AOVER TORMENT. ee AGAINST THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION New York, October 27th Hon. Diitw Root, New York City, N.Y. Dear Sir—In answer to your telegram of September % me to become a member of a Committee of Cituzens to the adoption of the new Constitution, | said that | wa ‘that ‘time sufficiently familiar with the Constitution t @hether of not | would be in favor of its adoption, further that | did not, at that time, know in what form it was to Submitted, whether in sections or as a whole. Since that time Constitution has been submitted substantially as a whole, 1 have tried, as a layman, to make as careful @ study of it possible. My conclusion is that It should not be adopted. My “qeasons are specific, and are as follows: 1 am wholly opposed to the demand made on the people by “ghe Convention that the Constitution te adopted practically in whole or nol at all, Sixteen of the eighteen sections are submitted in one ‘vote and these sixteen questions are the all-important part of the “Constitution. | can think of but two reasons for the Convention having taken this course: First, that it had so little respect for the intelligence of the voters of this State that it did not believe them capable of wisely discriminating between the sixteen different sec- ‘tions; or, Second, that it feared the intelligence of the voters and “yealized that they would discriminate and that many of the pro- ged amendments, if submitted separately, would unquestionably irejected. Neither reason is creditable to the Convention Whichever of these reasons existed, the fact is thal the voters have been deprived of their unquestioned right to select and reject as thev might deem proper, This right was granted the voters of Ohio in voting on their recently revised Constitution, where 42 proposi- “tions were submitted, 34 of which were adopted and 8 rejected. At was granted to the people of New Hampshire, where 4 proposi- tions were adopted and 6 rejected. In the State of Connecticut the Constitution was submitted in bulk twice, and each time was “fejected, In this State in 1867 a new Constitution was submitted “in bulk, with the exception of the Judiciary article, which was “submitted separately. The Judiciary article was accepted and . the Constitution sejected. 4 It seems clear to me that there is no answer to the serious objection tothe manner of submitting the new Constitution. It is a “fundamental weakness in the whole scheme. 1 appreciate that in ia great document like a State Constitution there has to be a certain “amount of give and take and that half a loaf is sometimes better “than nio loaf at all, granted always that the half loaf be not poisoned. ‘Why should a man who objects to the Conservation article, for example, but who favors the Short Ballot article, be m to take the Conservation article in order to get the ‘ Ballot arti¢le? This illustration applies to many of the “articles. ‘ ‘ In a statement issued by the “Committee for the Adoption ‘of the Constitution,” printed in Monday morning's papers, this “procedure of submitting the Constitution in bulk was sought to be excused, and the Committee, among other things, said: “This might have been the appropriate method if the Convention had “done nothing but suggest scattered changes on unrelated subjects. However, each important reform supplements and supports some reform.” » 2 OBVIOUSLY DISINGENUOUS © can understand how it might possibly be claimed that it wes necessary to submit together the Executive and Budget le, and possibly, even the Short Ballot with them, But what this group of articles to do with Judiciary, Conservation and ‘Yenistative debates? The atte mpted justification by. the ee is obviously disingenuous, new Constituti ‘ovides for an increase in the salaries "ag epaslathre you wl remember, of course, thal this was 40 the in the form of a separate amendment in a tented Brea vole of 267,000 in favor and 352,000 against, e'fhe strenuous efforts of the bipartisan machine to pass it, iy nét vicious, therefore, to submit it to the le so pete in such manner that they cannot defeat it 45 Aeon Sey % ut aleo defeating other proposals, some of which might favor? In the discussions that are now going on the strongest advocates of the proposed Constitution admit it there-are certain things in it that might be objectionable, but it we should adopt it because, on the whole, they claim it is an ‘ vement on the existing Constitution. To my mind the if It should have been submitted section by sec+ j 5 in ‘which event the le could have taken what they ap- and rejected what they did not approve. “The two propositions submitted, separately, are the Taxation icle and the Apportionment sections, P .As to the Apportionment proposition, separately submitted, is simply a Preis and a snare. makes no particular dif- ence in the apportionment which way the people vote on it, for it is adopted mgs remain as they are, and if it is defeated things in practically the same, but it should be remembered that up with this Apportionment submission is the provision ishing under certain conditions the State Enumeration of its itants. and authorizing apportionment to be made on the re federal census. "Fhe tate Enumeration has been one our large and unnecessary expenses, for the Federal Census is i that is necessary, and if the amendment abolishing State jumeration were submitted separately to the people it would juestionably ree: By tying it up with the Apportionment iy bol votere, will be put in the, posi- , Fe vote the proposition, epprrently ap- ing the present apportionment, and if they vote it, of apparently approving the continuance of the t unnecessary and extravagant State Census. In support of what I have said above on this subiect, | the following from the debate when the question of sub- ing this article separately was before the Convention: Bed By Mr. Brackett: “I ask the Chairman of the Committee (Mr, Parsons) what possible process of reasoning requires or suggests Yhat the amendment should be submitted separately, when if it ts rejected it leaves the Apportionment article precisely as it is? Ln +) @ther words, it is utterly insignificant as far as the result goos © whether the present amendment pending ts adopted or rejected. ‘If t# 4a adopted it adopts precisely the same method as in the awteting Constitution, and if i te rejected of course it leaves the | PrapEMt one stonding, Now, of all the sections of the whole inatrun Ont from bow et ne te ebm ote $0) Of erence wh way 1 hot wns the peereet wot make the ehehe 4 thee « Mr. Parsons (Chaw man of the Committ “The reult of the vole is correctly sated by Mr. Brackett The Convention went through the farce of submitting tt Apportionment article separately and of attempting to make the People think that it was 6 important that they should give their especial thought and attention to it and vote on it separately, when, as a matter of fact, it does not make a rap’s difference in the apportionment which way they vote. While this farcical question is being submitted separately, the people are denied the right, unquestionably theirs, to vote separately and independently on the great articles covering changes in reorganization of the Judiciary, Conservation, Powers of the Governor, Home Rule for Cities, Re-arrangement of all the Departments of the State, and other important ques- tions, where the result of their vote would be of real im- portance to them. This sort of treatment of the voters is an out- rage that ought to be resented by the people at the polls. SHORT BALLOT 1 personally regard this as such a long short ballot as to be inefficient. It does nothing except in a very slight way recognize the theory of a short ballot. The only real short ballot recognized by the Convention is in the method of submitting the Constitution to the voters. That is a short ballot with a vengeance! There is no compromise about that. JUDICIARY There are so many changes in the Judiciary article, and they are of such far-reaching effect, that, in my judgment, it is impos- sible for the people to comprehend the importance of these changes in the very short time they have been given in which to consider them, Briefly, my objection to the article is that it puts the Judiciary more into the practical politics of the State than it has ever been before, while progress should be made in exactly the opposite direction. To give judges the power to appoint subordinate judges, in my judgment, is all wrong. To give them, as the new Constitution proposes, power without limit to appoint as many judges as they desire under the name of “Supreme Court Commissioners” is conferring on them a patronage that is bad in principle and sure to bring the court into poiitics. If the appointive principle is to be established in our Constitution, it would be much safer to leave it with the Governor than with the judges. POWER OF THE GOVERNOR AND BUDGET In the matter of giving the Governor more and broader power, I believe there are mistakes of such a serious character that the ier in this respect will prove more harmful than beneficial. believe thoroughly in a proper budget system, but under our plan of electing a Governor for two years, granted that there is a change every two years, we would get an independent responsible budget system but every other year. For, if the Governor were abe elected this year and take office on the 1st of January, the budget for him would be made up by the department heads that were going out with the outgoing Governor, The next year the new sovernor 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 pro- vides a 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 which the Governor makes up his budget and sends it in is not by any means free from legislative influence, because the Legislature has the night 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, /n this connection, the restoration to the Governor of the power to appoint members of the Legislature to any office within his gift is victous to the last degree and thoroughy reactionary. The 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 abuse, In the discussion on this subject in the convention of 1821 that adopted the section which is now sought to be repealed, Mr. Williams, a delegate, said: “On the examination of the subject, it will be found that nineteen out of twenty of these oMces been filled out of the Legislature from year to year. It has been continued until the people have expressed their disapprobation from one part of the State to the other, and although they have selected in many instances fit and sultatie candidates for office, yet inasmuch as they were taken from the Legislature, they have been considered improper selections, An idea is entertained that the Legislature has been rendered subservie: to the appointment power for the promotion of political views and the advancement of individuals in that body,” Another delegate, Mr. Bacon, said: “When we see, as we have done at no remote period, more than one-third of the legislative body returning home with ther commissions in their pockets, the people will inevitably draw from it some unkind inferences.” (Mr. Bacon was evidently a very polite gentleman.) POWER TO APPOINT MEMBERS OF LEGISLA- TURE TO OFFICE In this connection, it is extremely important to note that the proposed Constitution not only restores to the Governor the power to appoint members of the Legislature to office, bu here is in the propaied new Constitution nothing whatever to prevent an Asseme lyman or a Senator being appointed by the Governor as head of one of the State Departments and still remaining.a member of the Legislature, silling in that body which will adopt a bkudgel for his own department, | consider giving the Governor such power as this tantamount to manufacturing a new and valuable currency with which the Governor can buy members of the Legislature for any purpose he desires. On the one hand it legalizes bribery the Governor; on the other hand it enables influent members of the Legislature to browbeat the into appointing them to important offices in order to put through his measures; on all hands it REINFORCES “INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT" IN THE MOST SINISTER POSSIBLE FORM. This provision is so vicious that if it were submitted to the People by itvelf it would net have the ghost of a show being adopted, and the attempt is clearly being made to force its adoption by coupling it up with other measures that claim re- spectability Can the voters of the State afford to pay such « price as this, even to obtain the advantages which the advocates of the new Constitution claim for it? STATE PRINTING The Constitution provides that everything said in all the debates of the Legislature shall hereafter be printed each day in pamphiet form simitar to the Congressional Record at Washington, This will cost many thousands a dollars a year, On its face, it looks like an innecent provision, Some people might think it a good thing; i has to be considered, however, in connection with its relation to other things, and one of these things 4s that the practice of the Stale Board of Printing has been to confine Stale printing to Altany County printing firms. The legislative investigation of two or three years ago and the Roosevelt-Barnes libel suit clearly showed that the State printing is so conducted as to be a valuable perquisite for the Albany bi-partisan pontine ring. The scandals already developed in connection with State printing have long cried out for the establishment of a State Printing Department, and under such conditions to multiply the amount of State printing without the establishment of a State Printing Depart- ment would seem to be a grave mistake. If this question of printing the daily speeches of mem- bers of the Legislature had been submitted as a separate question to voters, does anyone think they would adopt it? STATE DEPARTMENTS The idea of consolidating a great number of departments into a few large departments | thoroughly believe in, but the manner in which it has been done is open to grave criticism, This 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 Vege as a carefully thought out, ractical and efficient scheme of administering the State's affairs. he plan, as submitted, is intended to be made copper-fastened for twenty years. proposed Constitution specifically 1s away from the Legislature the power to create a single other department, for it specifically says: ‘‘No new depart- ment shall be created hereafter. Any bureau, board, com- mission 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 the pobre Constitution not only abolishes the recently created ‘partment of Markets but prohibits the Legislature from creat- ing anewone. Asa Department of Markets is not created as one of the seventeen departments or even indirectly referred to, the only poe way in the future to have anything that would re- semble 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 behalf of the people if it were good, or criticism from the people if it were poor,— THE PRECISE POSITION IN WHICH MANY DEALERS IN FOODSTUFFS DESIRE TO HAVE THE MARKET PLACED. It so happens that last year Mayor Mitchel appointed a Committee on Food Supply for New York oily, of which com- mittee | have been chairman. A great deal of study has been 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 York City does not arise from lack of supply in the country, for, as most farmers up the State know, vast quantities of uce 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 PEOPLE OF OUR CITY IS AN INCREAS- INGLY SERIOUS PROBLEM. 4 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 acentral head and be responsible to the public, a commission that could attempt to equalize the small eye obtained by the farmer up State and the high prices paid by the consumer in the city, THE PROPOSITION WAS MADE TO ME, as Chairman of the Food Surely, Committee, that if we would give up the idea of a Market Department with a peatralless and responsible head the market people would favor a sub-department under one of the present existing departments of government in the City of New York in charge of a Bureau Chief or an assistant. The proposition was reiected, of course, as it would have played right into the hands of the very men who made the sug- stion, and directly against the interests of the farmers of the tate and the consumers of the cities. These men want an obscure department, in charge of a small calibre man, with small power and away from the limelight, with whom they can deal; they are unalterably a to a man of sufficient calibre and sosupring 8 sition with sufficient power and publicity to enable Fim to serve the public as he should. Knowing this situation as intimately as I do from personal contact, | am amazed and disturbed to see that the proposed Constitution fits right into the scheme of these very men as they outlined it to me. THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TAKES AWAY FROM THE LEGISLATURE THE POWER EVER TO CREATE A GREAT, ALL-POW- ERFUL DEPARTMENT OF MARKETS that could be of inestimable value to producer and consumer alike; all that. the Legislature could do would be to place our Great marketing problem in the fa subordinate of some other department The proposed Constitution is careful to perpetuate the Public Service Commission, crested to regulate the trans- portation affairs of the people; yet only about 10 per cent. of the average man's income goes for transportation. The propored Constitution not only abolishes what we now have in the way of a State Market Department, but actually prohibits the establishment of such « 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 of New York, is the high cost Of fin . We will never get anywhere in the solution of it until we 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. {1 View of my experence in this matter, | regard the omission to create a Department of Markets and the provision prohibiting the Legislature from here- after creating one as so detrimental to the people of the Staee that I would vote against the adoption of the Constitution for this if for no other reason, CONSERVATION | regard the entire scheme of conservation as outlined in the proposed Constitution as pernicious and thoroughly ob- jectionable. We have until recently had a three-headed com- mission, and in my judgment, one cf the very best things Governor Whitman has done and for which he deserves great credit is the establishment of the Conservation Department in the hands of one Commissioner and the securing of Mr. Pratt, of Brooklyn, as the Commissioner. Here we have centralized power, responsibility and a business man who is willing to perform public service,—precisely the programme of administra- tion which all the advocates of the prop Constitution claim is the objective of the entire Constitutional sche yet in this matter of conservation, exactly the opposite ¢ e has been taken, A commission 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 em- ploy a superintendent on a salary to conduct the affairs of the department. These nine men, living as they will in nine different parts of the State, will have very slight opportunity to get together often enough or for sufficiently long periods at a time to understand the vast problem of conservation in this State. The result will be, as it always has been in such cases, that the hired man will actually do the work, Who will know who this man is? He will have no pride of place, no responsibility to the people. and will be far removed from them. Bocs anyone suppose, for instance, that a man like Mr. Pratt would accept the position of superintendent? — If the Commission does anything to which the people object which one of the nine is going to be re sponsible? In short, in place of centralizing power and placing it where the people can put their finger on it, the new Con- stitution broadly scatters it and places such executive power as there is in the hands of a superintendent. One provision prohibits the Commission from selling any wood that it may cut in its forestry work, | happen to be fairly familiar with forestry work and know that much of the wood that is properly cut has a marketable value. If this nine-headed commission can be so greatly trusted, as we are told it can be, why not give it the power to sell any wood that can properly be sold and turn the money into the State treasury? Under the present provision they are prevented from selling it, but they are nol prevented from giving it away, 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. This of course means to a large extent the sea fish in and about the waters of the City of New York. This again brings up my own experience of the pee year on the Mayor's Food Supply Committee, w it was found that the dete of supervision and control of this industry causes jestruction of perfectly d sea food and to a considerabl ‘tent accounts for ther high price of such sea food as we get. To deny to the Conserva- tion Commission this extremely important function is, in my jud, nt, not only a great mistake, but an insur- mountable impediment to any reforms necessary to vide New York City with a suitable supply of sea food at proper prices. The exception was avowedly placed in the proposed article at the instance of the fone Island fish interests, for Mr. Pelletreau, a delegate from Suffolk County, said during the debate on a molion to strike out the exception: “This 19 @ matter of grave importance to the people of my locality, Aside from viewing 1t in @ broad and Btate sense, view- ing it from my own personal comfort, if down in my county, Suffolk, it is learned that t water fisheries had been by constitutional provision placed under the Conservation Depart- ment, why, [ will have the entire salt water fish industry after me with a sharp stick. I won't dare to co home." There are various defects in the proposed Constitution, I doubt if a layman could find them all, for there is so much vague> ness about so many provisions and one is put to the necessity not only of studying the new Constitution but the old Con- titution, the laws of the State and the practices of the Legis- lature in order to reach anything resembling an intelligent un- derstanding 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 as 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 and money spent On it will not have been in vain, for it has aroused a State-wide discussion that has been of great educational value and we will approach the whole subject another year better equipped to deal with the great problem of really representative and efficient government which is facing us for solution. In view of the discussion since the Constitu- tional 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, PERKINS, = |