The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-09-03


ferred to or other reliable means
of ascertaining that the required pei
centum of the entire vote of the state
had voted would have been provided
Certainly the mere requirement that
amendments should receive a major
ity of all the votes cast on all amend
ments, which might not be 1000 in the
state, would not call for the attend
ance of any number of voters. 1t can
not be that the purpose was to require
the majority of the voters of the state
to adopt an amendment, and to take
the entire number attending at the
polls as the best practical test, with
out registration of the number of vot-
ers, for if that had been the purpose
the constitution would have required
returns of all the votes cast
on any subject OF for or against any
and all candidates when constitu-
tional amendments were voted on at
general elections, whereas, the section
in question, looking only to gathering
data upon which the adoption or re-
lection of constitutional amendments
may be declared, provides only for
returns of votes cast "for and against
said amendments"
Does it not seem reasonable that If
the purpose had been to require a
majority of all the voters voting at an
election a provision would have been
inserted requiring returns to show
the total vote or at least the highest
vote cast in each precinct or county at
a general election at which constitu-
tional amendments were voted on?
Tho ,1raoica c1aStipO Iva haua DnHpr
consideration arose in Kansas on the
tuition so nearly identical with ours
that the decision is certainly in point.
The supreme court of Kansas in pass
ing on the question in the prohibitory
amendment cases ga Kan, 700),
speaking through Mr.. Justice Brewer,
who is now one of the justices Of the
supreme court of the United States,
said:
"Another argument is based upon
the use of the plural in this cause, and
if a majority of the electors voting on
said amendments at said election
shall adopt the amendments the same
shall become part of the constitu-
tion.n No, it is said that computing
the vote by precincts it is apparent
that more than twice 92,3O2 voters
voted on the two amendments, some
on one and some on the other,
and that before any one amendment
is adopted it must appear that a ma
iority of all who voted on all the
amendments, voted in the affirmative
on one. This does not commend itself
to our Judgment. A more correct in
depreciation, dramatically, of this
language would be, that no single
amendment could be adopted unless
all were, there being no provision for
adopting one out Of several. But we
think the clear intent is that every
amendment submitted shall stand
upon it's own merits, and that If ma
iority of those voting upon it is in the
affirmative, it becomes a part OF the
constitution. This idea is confirmed
by the further provision that where
more than one amendment is sub
mitted, they must be so submitted as
TO enable the voters to vote on each
separately.
In Gillespie VS.. Palmer ct al. the SUI
preme court of Wisconsin passed on a
similar question to the one we are con-
sidering, but in that case the literal
reading of the constitution construed
seemed to be against the construction
adopted by the court, but the court
interpreted it's meaning in accordance
with the reason and spirit of the law.
The constitution Of Wisconsin con-
tanned provisions determining who
should have the right to vote to which
was appended the following proviso:
"Provided, That the legislature may
at any time extend by law the right
of suffrage to persons not herein
enumerated; Tut no such law shall be
in force until the same shall have
been submitted to a vote OF
the people at a general cleo
ton, and approved by a MAORI
ity of the'votes cast at such election.
The court referring to this proviso
makes the following observations
among others:
"If, however, we should concede
that the clause in question could be
construed to mean, or was equivalent
to approved by majority of all the
voters voting at such election it
would not follow that it had reference
to majority of voters voting on any
other measure than the one mentioned
| in the DfONlSO, VI blldU Ullc lluInDCl vi
votes cast at such election for the can
didates for any office should deter
mine whether the suffrage was eX-
tended or not. Why should such a
test be required?
=
at would be saying that the vote OF
every person who voted for any
candidate for any Office at such cleo
ton, and did not vote on the suffrage
question, should be vote against the
extension of suffrage. If this con-
struction is correct, there would be no
necessity of providing by law, as the
legislature did, when the, question
was submitted to vote of the peo-
pie, for the casting Or recording of any
votes directly against the extension of
suffrage; for if the votes in it's favor
are not equal to a majority of all the
voters voting for any and all of the
candidates voted for at such election
the second section would not become
- Io,,J Sanford VS. Prince % Wis,