New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-09-03

Stitc COuStiluiiOnS ms cAlSl"u lh'SO P''
posals have increased in frequency in modern
times, and are now of constant occurrence
Scarcely year passes III which some State
oftencr more than onc-votcs on an amend
ment. The vote is usually taken at genera
election, and is always smaller than lor
the officers. Has it been customary to test
the popular acceptance of an amendment py
comparing its vote with the aggregate Vo'e
cast for officers } Certainly not. The general
understanding and practice have been that Il
majority of the votes cast on the amendment
are sufficient to ratify it. An indefinite num-
Der of Constitutional provisions, under wh'c"
the people Of the various States are lvih-'
stand on no stronger ground than the lhu'aii'
amendment, and are impcrilled py 'no
position Of The Indiana court.
The true ground or principle on which q iil''
iOrity OF votes east carries the weight VI
majority Of all voters is, not any weak hc'loh
that all persons vote vino are authorized 10 90
So bat the strong, cCmmOn-seusc implication
that persons who do not vote assent to the
result of the votes of those who 30. This Is
not a new or rare question. All over the
land, not only in popular elections oli
in legislatures, town meetings, colpo-
rate meetings dclibcrative bod es of every
kind, questions are every day PUT to vote, ana
decided upon a majority of the votes cast
although it is obvious that the prevailing
vote is not half of all the qualified voters. 4
presiding officer win declare measure
carried by three votes against two, although
there are a hundred qualified members sitting
right before his eyes, silent and Indifferent.
He is right The basis is, not probability
that the votes cast are ali that might have
bcen--such probability never cxlSts-but the
Justice and necessity OF treating those who donot
vote as asserting to tie result 1t Is not ac-
curate to say that, upon the American doc
trne, the vote Of 4 majority rules; the pH
of the majority Is what rules this Will is as
certained by inviting all to vote. and ASSUME
ing in sensible, untechnical way that those
who are absent or silent assent that the ques-
ton shall be decided by those who attend and
vote. 1t is upon imputiug the preferences OF
the larger number of voters to the indl-
ferents, and not upon any absurd I'M
agning that there are no lndiiierents,
that the whole doctrine of the author
ity of majoritcs rests. When this prln-
cipe is applied to an election upon an amend
ment, the result is simple AMI clear. The will
of the people of the State is inferred from
the largest number of votes for or against the
amendment. If there were voters who came
out to vote for officers, thereby showing that
nothing whatever prevented them from voting
on the amendment, they, above all other per-
sons may reasonably be supposed to have
consented that the amendment should abide
the contest between its friends and its foes.
Wisconsin has decided substantially this
question in favor of this view. So has Mime
sofa in three cases. The question of rcmOv-
ing a county seat has been submitted to pop
uar vote and the Supreme Court has been
asked to disregard the majority vote on the
ground that it was less than half of the cleo
TORS in the county. Bnt the Court answered
that. when a question is put to the people,
and is made to depend on the vote Of ma
iOritv. there can be no other test of the num-
Der entitled to vote than the ballot-bOx. If
there be some who do not attend and vote, it
must be presumed that they concur with a
majority of those who do.