The Constitution of Oklahoma has probably been misunderstood to some extent because of hostile criticism in the public press, inspired, as the people of Oklahoma believe, by the antagonism of special interests.

The Constitution of Oklahoma is nothing more nor less than what might have been expected from a community where hundreds of thousands of men were assembled within a few short years, coming from every state in the Union, and bringing with them their experience as citizens of other states. Trained lawyers from every state in the Union were assembled in Oklahoma, and took part in the drawing of the Constitution of the new State. They had before them a personal knowledge as well as the actual text of the Constitution of every state in the Union, and the knowledge of the judgments of courts relative thereto.

The most important thought which runs through the Constitution of Oklahoma is expressed in Section 11, of Bill-of-Bights, to wit:

“All persons have the inherent right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.”

It will here be observed that “the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry” is emphaiszed by being added to the usual declaration of the inherent right “to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” which other Constitutions have uniformly set forth.

The Constitution was drawn with a view to making this special declaration effective, and with a view to controlling monopolies and special privileges. Section 32 for example declares that “Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed.”

By proclamation of the Convention (and not by popular vote) the revised Constitution of Virginia went into effect on the tenth day of July, 1902. Before that date, the government of Virginia, with a few amendments, was under the Constitution adopted in Reconstruction days and finally put into operation in 1870. The call for a convention which resulted in the new Constitution of 1902 came chiefly as the result of movements in the South of more than twenty years' duration for the modification of suffrage, Virginia not considering seriously any change until about 1899. When the question of a convention was submitted to the people in 1900, other matters than suffrage were assigned as reasons for a new Constitution, among them being greater economy in the administration of affairs and a better system of taxing corporate enterprises.

The new constitution made a number of changes in the executive departments. Before 1851, only the General Assembly was elected by popular vote, but after that date, the governor, the attorney-general, the lieutenant-governor, and even the judges were elected by the people. By the Underwood Constitution, the members of the general assembly, the governor, the lieutenant-governor and attorney-general were the only State officers elected by popular suffrage. The new constitution not only continued this but also provided for the popular election of such officers as the secretary of the commonwealth, the treasurer, the superintendent of public instruction, and the commissioner of agriculture, but the first and second auditor of public accounts and the register of the land office are still elected by the legislature.

It is not the purpose of this paper to summarize the accomplishments of the past decade in the Philippines or to institute a comparison with conditions under Spanish rule. An adequate summary and comparison of this sort would run far beyond the time allotted here. And apart from the fact that the period has not come for essaying historical judgments in this case, it is more pertinent to the purposes of such a gathering as this to consider our experience primarily with reference to our course of action in the future. Looking at our Philippine experience to date only in its main aspects—therefore of necessity slurring over details—what does it seem to teach as to the success of our general policy and as to desirable modifications in our methods?

For various reasons, undue emphasis has, since American occupation of the Philippines, been put upon the purely political questions connected therewith. The first consideration was the insurrection, the demands of its leaders and the exigencies it created being primarily political in character. Let us reverse the emphasis here, taking up first fiscal and economic problems. For one thing, these matters are more vital to the welfare of the Philippine people as a whole than are the pending political questions. Moreover, when a rich, industrially well-developed and highly individualistic country like ours assumed control of affairs in a backward, semi-communistic country in the tropics, it was inevitable that there should be some shock in the readjustment, even if it had not been accentuated by warfare and pestilence.