CHAPTER XVII

VOTE IN 1886 FOR A CONVENTION----^DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEGIS¬
LATURE AND GOVERNOR----LEGISLATION PROVIDING FOR CON¬
VENTION----ELECTION OF DELEGATES IN FALL OF I893----OUT¬
LINE OF WORK OF THE CONVENTION OTHER THAN UPON THE
JUDICIARY ARTICLE, AND IN RELATION TO CANALS----TREAT¬
MENT  OF ARTICLE  XIV----RE-APPORTIONMENT  IN   SENATE AND

ASSEMBLY----CONVENTION'S REPORT----SUBMISSION OF ITS WORK

TO THE PEOPLE----LATER CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES----RELATIVE

VALUE  OF  METHODS  OF AMENDMENT.

Section 2 of Article XIII of the constitution, as it stood be¬
fore the changes made in 1894, prescribed in brief that at the
general election in the year 1886 and every twentieth year there¬
after, the electors qualified to vote for members of the legislature
should have an opportunity to determine whether a convention
should be called to revise and amend the constitution, and that
if a majority of the qualified electors voting upon the subject at
the election should favor a convention, the legislature at its suc¬
ceeding session should provide for the election of delegates to
such convention. The popular vote in 1886 for a convention
overwhelmingly preponderated over the vote against it, being
574,993 to 30,766; in other words, ninety-five per cent, of those
voting upon the subject wished a convention called. There had
never before in the history of the State been such a decisive
expression upon a constitutional question. Out of a total vote
of 144,247 in 1821 upon the question of a convention or no con-
334