The late Chicago newspaper columnist Mike Royko once suggested that the city’s official motto should be “Ubi est meum?” — Latin for “Where’s mine?”

Now comes the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys with a public relations campaign that might as well have “Ubi est meum?” as its slogan, too.

The prosecutors are reacting to progress made by the state Public Defender System in convincing policy makers that public defenders, who represent indigent clients accused of serious crimes, need more money.

Nearly 10 years of flat funding has taken a terrible toll on the public defender system. Missouri ranks near the bottom of the 50 states in per-capita support of lawyers for indigent defendants. There are serious doubts that the state can meet its constitutional duty to provide effective legal representation in criminal cases.

With bipartisan support, the state Legislature earlier this year passed a bill that would grant the Missouri Public Defender Commission authority to set caseload limits for its lawyers. That would not have corrected the funding shortage; indeed, it would have created even longer waits for trial for many clients. But it would have brought stability to the cash-starved system.

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the bill. He acknowledged that the “public defender system is operating under significant stress.” But he said that allowing the defenders to limit caseloads would burden other parts of the judicial system, including the courts, prosecutors and crime victims, as cases start to stack up.

The governor pledged to help “identify additional resources that will allow criminal proceedings to proceed effectively and efficiently for all participants.”

But prosecutors say things aren’t all that bad for public defenders. Their association is calling for “a total review of the Missouri criminal justice system” in hopes of achieving “a healthy, well-funded system that properly serves victims, defendants [and] taxpayers” and the state and federal constitutions.

The prosecutors have a point. Resources are tight for all parts of the justice system. Prosecutors do, in fact, need more resources, particularly to do a better job of cracking down on drunk driving.

But the Constitution does not condition the right to counsel on the level of resources other parts of the system receive. The Constitution does not say, “Let’s do another study first, and see what we can come up with.”

If the state wants to prosecute an indigent person and put him in prison, the Constitution requires that it provide him with a lawyer who has the time and resources to mount a competent defense.

The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this month in a case that considers whether the Public Defender Commission already has the authority to manage the number of cases its lawyers are required to accept, even without the benefit of the bill the governor vetoed.

One judge asked the lawyer for the public defenders if the whole matter couldn’t be resolved with a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the state’s public defender system.

The lawyer observed that the very purpose of the Public Defender Commission is to prevent such a crisis. The Supreme Court has a similar duty in how it frames rules of professional responsibility that limit a lawyer from taking on more work than he can competently handle.

The Supreme Court must evaluate the public defender system and provide immediate relief if it’s being pushed far beyond its capacity.