The Portland daily press., 1880-12-03
lRockland Free Press.l

The Constitutional amendment.
The Legislature of 1880 adopted the follow
ing resolves, intending thereby to amend the
Constitution, SO that plurality of votes
should elect Governor instead Of majority
as heretofore. 1t will be seen, Also that the
resolves provided that the amendment should
apply to the election of last September. They
are as follows:
Resotced, Twothirds of both branches of the
LEGISLATURE concurring that the constitution Of this
first part Of article five, by str ing out the word
"majori ", wherever it occurs therein, and insert
ing in the place thereof the word pluraty;;' and
plurality of the cast and returned for Gov
ernOr, at the annual September election for the
year eighteen hundred and eighty shall determine
the election Govern for the years eighteen hun
dred and eighty-one and two.
Resolved. TGat the aldermen of cities, selectmen
Of towns, and the assessors of plantations in the
State are hei eby empowered and directed to notify
the inhabitants OF their respective cities, towns and
plantations, in he manner prescribed by law, at
the annual meeting in ssptsmbsr next to give in
foregoing resolve; and the question sh III be- "shal
the consIitui be amended to prov, de for the
majority" And the inhabitan:s Of said cities
towns and plantations, shall vote by ballot said
question, those in favor of said amendment voting
YES" and those opposed voting mo-" upon their
ballots &c.
These resolves, as we have said, the Legisla-
ture adopted, and SO far as that body was con
cerned, did their part to amend the constitu-
tion both so as to make the Governor elective
by plurality and to render this provision ap
pllcable to the election of September, 1880.
But in one respect their work was faulty. The
Constitution requires not only that an amend
ment of itself shall be adopted by concurrent
vote of two-thirds of the Legislature, but by
the people also. So that if o proposition for
that purpose be adopted by the Legislature
and fail to be adopted by the people also, it
fails entirely and is void. Now the fault
which the Legislature committed in the fore
going resolutions, was in excluding from the
question to be submitted to the people all OF
the propositions which they had adopted max
ing the plurality amendment applicable to the
election of 1880. Instead of including that
portion of the resolve adopted ~ the Legisla-
ture in the question submitted to the people,
the following only was properly submitted:
Shall the Constitution be amended so as to pro-
vide for the election of Governor by plurality in
stead of a majority.
This and this only was submitted to the poo
pie and became q part of the Constitution
when the votes were opened by the Governor
on the 9Th of November, and it appeared that
majority of them had been cast in its favor.
He then issued his proclamation declaring il
adopted. Now the question arises, could this
amendment to the Constitution, which became
part Of that instrument on the 9th of No
vember, apply to an election of Governor
which took place some two months previous?
Has Mr.. Cheney orlthe Portland PRESS a right
to assume that any Intelligent man casting his
ballot in favor of this amendment voted for
any proposition which that ballot did not con
tain? We think not. There is, however, an
other question to be settled, viz: whether if
the plurality amendment became part of the
Constitution, Nov. 9th, the Legislature in jan
uary next ascertaining that no election of Gov
ernor has been legally made by the people,
can proceed to elect under the Constitution a.
it existed on the 18th of September. The rule
nf fv xUa halle vo iuafifv
proceeding. Still, as we have said in another
place, recourse to the Supreme Court affords
the only satisfactory and authoritative method
by which to settle the whole matter.