The Rock Island Argus

THE STATE CAPITOL

The Springfield state house ring are putting in their work, having already raised the question as to whether the appropriation was defeated or not, and they will undoubtedly claim that a 'decision is necessary to decide' this (to them) important matter. No one not working in the interest of the ring, or controlled by it, doubts for a moment that the appropriation was handsomely defeated as it should have been; but the ring is willing to pay for a decision, and they will get it too, if money can procure it. The following from the Chicago Journal, is thrown out as a feeler; to prepare the public mind, as it were, for what is to come:

Has the proposition for an appropriation to complete the Illinois state house been adopted? The constitution provides that not to exceed $3,500,000 shall be expended for the construction of a new state house, but the edifice is not completed, requiring at least $525,000 to finish it. At the recent election the question of an additional appropriation to that amount was submitted to a vote of the people of the state, and the result is that 231,721 votes were given in the affirmative, and 153,679 in the negative—being a majority of 78,042 in favor of the appropriation—that is, a majority of all the votes actually cast on that specific question, for and against. The state constitution, in its provisions for its own amendment, declares that, after favorable action by the legislature, such proposed amendment shall be submitted to the electors of this state for adoption or rejection at the next election of members of the general assembly, and that 'if a majority of the electors voting at such election shall vote for the proposed amendment, it shall become a part of the constitution. Now the question is, does this clause mean a majority of the votes cast for members of the general assembly, or only a majority of all the votes cast for and against the proposed amendment? If the latter, then the state house appropriation has been adopted. If the former, then it is defeated. The total number of votes cast at the late election was over 475,000, while the total number of votes cast on the state house appropriation question was only 385,400. It remains to be authoritatively decided whether, in view of the ambiguous wording of the amendment clause of the constitution, the state house appropriation is carried or not. Lawyers differ as to whether that clause means a majority of all the votes cast at an election for members of the general assembly, or a majority only of the votes cast upon a specific amendment.