of the whole. If procedure in committee of the whole is adopted, some rule should exist preventing the defeat of proposals in such committee without a roll call. A committee of the whole, completely unrestricted, is probably undesirable, but a simpler procedure may be had in committee of the whole, and the convention may at the same time adopt rules which place some limitation upon action in committee of the whole. The rules of the Michigan Convention of 1907-08 seem fairly satisfactory for this purpose. "The rules of the convention. shall be observed in committee of the whole, so far as they are applicable, except that the vote of a majority of said committee shall govern its action; it cannot refer a matter to any other committee; it cannot adjourn; the previous question shall not be enforced; the yeas. and nays shall not be called; a motion to indefinitely postpone shall not be in order; a member may speak more than once. A journal of the proceedings in the committee of the whole shall be kept as in convention." A similar rule existed in the Ohio Convention of 1912. The important portion of this rule is that requiring that a journal be kept of proceedings in the committee of the whole.

Most conventions have begun their work practically without limitation of debate, although the previous question has been permitted. In the Michigan Convention of 1907-08 any member could move the previous question but must be seconded by ten members and it could be ordered by a majority of those present and voting; in the Ohio Convention of 1912 a two-thirds vote was necessary to sustain the previous question. In the New York Convention of 1894 several rules limited debate. The previous question could be carried by a majority vote and the committee on rules could, when ordered by the convention, report a rule limiting debate upon a particular question. 7

Obstructive tactics seem to have been resorted to by the minority in the New York Convention and a rule was finally brought in and adopted denying the ayes and noes on formal and dilatory motions. The Michigan Convention somewhat late in its session limited the length of speeches in committee of the whole and the Illinois Convention of 1869-70 found it necessary to adopt a similar limitation. In the South Carolina Convention of 1895 the expedient was adopted late in the session of appointing a steering committee, to apportion the time. and direct the work of the convention.

Convention debate should be free enough to allow adequate consideration of every proposal, but experience has shown that if a convention starts its deliberations without any limitations upon debate a large portion of the time is likely to be taken up with excessive debate upon the earlier questions presented, so that the later work of the convention must be unduly rushed. In order to prevent such a situation it is wise for a convention to impose a moderate limitation upon debate at the outset, and such a limitation should exist not only for the convention itself but also for action in committee of the whole.

In connection with the orderly consideration of the proposals before a convention, it may be necessary to have a rule somewhat similar to that of the New York Convention of 1915. "The third reading of proposed constitutional amendments shall take place in the 'Revised Record, New York Convention of 1894, I, 215; IV, 700; V, 674, 677, 678.

order in which they have been ordered to a third reading unless the convention by a vote of two-thirds of the members present direct otherwise or the proposed constitutional amendment to be read is laid on the table."

In the Michigan Convention of 1907-08 the first committee appointed was one on permanent organization and order of business. This committee was afterward made permanent. It reported the plan of committee organization and made other reports during the session of the convention. One of its recommendations, which was adopted, provided for a weekly meeting of the chairmen of committees, to be presided over by the president of the convention, "at which meeting the chairmen of the several committees shall report progress and consider such other matters as may be of interest in advancing the work of the convention." Such a plan, if properly carried out, should do much to unify the work of a convention. In any organization of a convention there should be some central organization which will effectively direct the work and prevent loss of time, although of course much of the usual loss of time may be avoided by careful consideration in the first instance of the rules under which a convention is to proceed.

A committee on arrangement and phraseology is perhaps the most important single committee of a convention. Practically all conventions have had a committe of this type but the name of the committee has varied. In the Federal Convention of 1787 there was a committee on style, and in the Illinois Convention of 1869–70 there was a committee on revision and adjustment. A recess has often been taken by the convention so as to allow sufficient time for the work of this committee. In the greater number of conventions the committee on arrangement and phraseology has been merely a proof reading committee, and in some cases fear has been expressed lest this committee change the sense of proposals adopted by the convention. However, a committee is needed to do something more than the mere editorial work of removing inconsistencies in sense and language. The work of a convention is necessarily made up from reports of a number of committees and the proposals presented will naturally lack consistency in draftsmanship. The committee on arrangement and phraseology should serve in large part as a central drafting organ to give unity to the work of a convention.

In the use made of its committee on arrangement and phraseology, as well as in the general method of procedure employed, the Michigan Convention of 1907-08 deserves brief consideration. Proposals introduced by members were read and referred to the appropriate committee; when reported by the committee they were taken up in committee of the whole, and when reported upon by the committee of the whole were referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology. The proposal when reported upon by this committee, was put upon its second reading and after second reading was voted upon. If adopted, it was again referred to the committee on arrangement and phraseology which, after all proposed amendments had been considered, reported the complete revision as agreed upon, the convention taking a twelve

8 Proceedings and Debates, Michigan Convention of 1907-08, I, 86.

In many conventions the committee on rules has also considered the subject of organization and order of business. Two committees hardly seem necessary.

day recess in order to give time for this work. This revision was then considered by sections in the committee of the whole, was reported to the convention and was then put upon the third reading and voted upon by articles and as a whole. This procedure gave four different opportunities for the discussion and amendment of every proposal. But more important, it gave the committee on arragement and phraseology great influence by allowing it an opportunity to revise the language of each proposal after it was agreed to in committee of the whole and before it was definitely adopted; proposals so revised came again to this committee to be consolidated into a complete Constitution. As a result of this care the Michigan Constitution of 1908 is the best drafted of recent state Constitutions.

A somewhat similar use of its committee on arrangement and phraseology was made by the Ohio Convention of 1912. The consideration upon second reading was primarily upon the substance, and thereafter the proposal went to the committee on arrangement and phraseology and after the report of this committee it was presented for final action. The Ohio committee presented its reports in such a manner that each member of the convention had before him the original form of proposal adopted by the convention, the changes recommended by the committee, and the proposal as it would read if such recommendations were adopted.9

In the Illinois Convention of 1869-70 the committee on revision and adjustment was primarily an editorial committee. The New York Convention of 1915 and the Massachusetts Convention of 1917 are of interest as presenting a fairly effective use of a similar committee. Of recent conventions those of Michigan (1907-08), Ohio (1912), and New York (1915), had the most satisfactory rules. The rules of the New York Convention of 1894 were based too much upon partisan considerations. The rules of the Massachusetts Convention of 1917 are open to the objection that they allow absolute freedom of debate in committee of the whole, and have tended to permit too great a degree of debate upon the measures first presented to the convention.

9 Letter from Professor G. W. Knight of Ohio State University, who was a member of the Ohio Convention of 1912.

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

The question of assembling a convention will be submitted to the voters at the general election to be held on November 5, 1918. The resolution for a convention was adopted by the Senate on January 24, 1917, and concurred in by the House of Representatives on March 14, 1917. Since that time there has been more or less discussion concerning the advisability of calling a convention at this time. In view of the impending election the discussion of this question will no doubt become more keen and pronounced. Consideration, therefore, of the arguments for and against the assembling of a convention may not be amiss.

ARGUMENTS FOR A CONVENTION.

Any argument in favor of a convention necessarily assumes the need for amending the Constitution. One of the arguments against a convention also assumes the need for constitutional revision. There are two methods of amending the Constitution: (a) the convention method and (b) the legislative proposal method. Those who favor amending the Constitution but oppose the convention take the position that necessary constitutional revision may be obtained by amending the Constitution so as to make the legislative proposal method more effective. They admit that the legislative proposal method in its present form is seriously defective and practically inoperative. This view, of course, involves a comparison of the two methods of amending the Constitution. Such a comparison cannot be made without stating the arguments for a convention. In order to avoid duplication the arguments for a convention will not be considered at this time. Their consideration will be deferred until the comparison of the two methods is made. In stating the arguments for and against a convention there will be presented (a) a consideration of those arguments against a convention which do not assume the need for constitutional revision together with the answers made to them, and (b) a comparison of the two methods of amending the Constitution.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST A CONVENTION.

1. It has been suggested that a convention should not be assembled pending the war. The reasons for this suggestion are (a) that all of our energies are being devoted to the task of prosecuting the war to a successful conclusion and that nothing should be permitted to inter

fere with this task; (b) that mature deliberation and careful work by the convention might be wanting because of the fact that the primary interest of the delegates would be in the war; and (c) that the voters, carried away by their greater interest in the war, would be inclined to give insufficient heed to the work submitted by the convention.

The convention advocates have not been at a loss to answer these arguments. Their first contention is that even if the people vote for a convention on November 5, 1918, it would be almost impossible for the convention to assemble before 1919 and that, in all probability, it could not complete its work before sometime in 1920. If the war should end before September, 1919, and they argue that very likely it will, the arguments of those who oppose a convention pending the war would vanish. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent the General Assembly from postponing the assembling of a convention even if the people, on November 5, 1918, vote favorably on the convention resolution. The General Assembly which convenes in January, 1919, could provide for the election of delegates in 1920 and could direct the assembling of the convention in that year. As a matter of fact, the election of delegates and the assembling of the convention, if deemed desirable, could be postponed until 1921 or 1922. But they also insist that the holding of a convention while the nation is engaged in war will not prevent the State of Illinois from doing its part in the prosecution of the war. In their view the assembling of a convention will materially assist the State in the performance of its duties in that respect, by permitting the adoption of more efficient methods in the conduct of State and local government. The present serious financial difficulties of Chicago, for example, it is pointed out, can be adequately met only through constitutional changes, and the financial problems of the State are rendered more acute by the existence of war. Government, it is urged, is a function that must continue during war, and the war presents no excuse for continuing to do governmental work less efficiently than it can be done, if a better organization is possible. Nor do they believe that the war will prevent careful work by the delegates to the convention or due consideration of the convention's work by the voters.

2. Convention opponents urge that a revision of the Constitution will operate to unsettle present judicial constructions. By a great number of decisions the Supreme Court, they say, in the course of more than 47 years, has construed and interpreted the various provisions of the Constitution. These provisions have thus been explained and their meaning definitely ascertained and established. To revise the Constitution, in their view, would be to cast aside constitutional provisions, the meaning of which, by judicial decisions, has been definitely established. The new provisions would be uncertain and indefinite. It is urged that of necessity a new era of judicial construction would follow and confusion would ensue, not to be dispelled until the

1 The Arkansas Constitutional Convention assembled on November 19, 1917, and, two days later, having perfected its organization and arranged for the appointment of its committees, adjourned until the first Monday in July, 1918. This is another method of postponing the work of a convention. The Massachusetts Constitutional Convention which met June 6, 1917 held sessions until November 28, 1917, proposed four amendments to the Constitution, and adjourned until June, 1918, when it will resume discussion of further proposals for constitutional change.