At the election to be held November 6, the citizens of the State of Illinois will, among other things, have to vote as to whether they desire a revision of the State Constitution by a constitutional convention. The constitution now in effect dates from the year 1870 and many of its ordinances are so antiquated that they no longer fit in with our modern times. The unequal distribution of taxes and, in the last analysis, Chicago's whole tax confusion is in part the result of some clauses in the constitution. These may have been in keeping with conditions sixty or seventy years ago, but in no way do justice to the shift in the population and to the change in the state's economic conditions which in the meantime have taken place.

The constitution of our state has from the start contained the misconceived notion that it must occupy itself with too many details, instead, as in the 2case with the Federal Constitution, of forming the foundation for legislative procedure. It is the duty of the constitution to clarify and to safeguard the rights and obligations of the citizens in relation to the state. The shorter and more concise such a fundamental law is, the more is it useful and the longer does it form a fitting frame for state activities. The United States Constitution is more than a century and a half old, and even today still is a useful instrument. This is because its framers made no attempt to ease the work of Congress, but wisely restricted themselves to the establishment there of civil liberty and to carefully balancing the rights of the three carriers of governmental powers.

On the other hand, the constitution of the state of Illinois was the work of persons who could not be compared with the wise men of the time of Washington, they were just politicians. Politicians of the average type are, however, scarcely qualified to give a good constitution to the people; they will never lose their relations with their vocation,[as politicians] 3but will always be on the lookout for advantages for themselves and for their friends. There may be a few white ravens (honest men) among them; but those are rare. That is why it would be best not to admit them to the task of preparing a new constitution for the state. Men with a farther reaching mental horizon should be entrusted with it, men of experience and knowledge, men who are not only thoroughly familiar with the history and the development of our state, but also know the development of other states, who know the essence, the purpose of a constitution, men used to exercising circumspection in their judgment and to carefully weighing the pros and cons.

All this will, of course, remain a pious wish. For experience teaches us that constitutional conventions comprise, as a rule, the same professional politicians who just happen to sit in the legislature. In case the call for a constitutional convention is decided upon, the parties quickly put up their candidates for the convention and, with very few exceptions, they will always be members of the legislative body, because it is they who have the 4greatest influence upon the decisions of the party committee. That is not in order, and is not in keeping with the purpose of the constitutional convention. By no means should a constitution be written by the same persons who sit in the legislature and promulgate laws based upon the constitution. It should be expressly prohibited that politicians, who in the last few years have been or still are members of the legislature, have anything to do with the framing of a new constitution. The people should give themselves their own constitution and not receive it from the hands of the legislature or from the majority of its members. What the politicians want is by far not always the will of the people.

The politicians have monopolized the legislature and their personal interests are intimately connected with it. To be sure, the people elect the delegates to the constitutional convention, but in reality they have no choice in the matter. In the end they must always elect the candidates put up by the party machines. Independent candidates have no chance. The herd of the voters 5invariably follow the bellwether appointed by the party. The results of a constitutional convention thus composed have been experienced before in Illinois. It is not so very long since an attempt was made to give the state a new constitution. The citizens knew full well what they wanted; but the delegates to the convention did not do what the citizens wanted, and drew up a constitution after ideas of their own. They were told in advance that their labors would be in vain if they disregarded the wishes of the citizens. The outraged people promptly declined the bungled piece of work. The politicians labored for nothing but the people did not get what they wanted. The considerable costs of the convention were footed by the taxpayers. It will hardly be different with another convention unless the citizens show some spunk against the machine right from the beginning and bring their own candidates to the convention, independent of parties. A new convention, however, is unconditionally necessary, for the old constitution is an outworn garment, which no amount of mending could possibly make useful.