The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-09-03
THE AMENDMENT VOTE.
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE
A MAJORITY OF ALL VOTES
Cast to Decide an Amendment Adopted, But
for Votes Cast on the Particular
subject-Col. Frank Morris
Legal Talk.
AUSTIN, Tex, Sept. l, 1891.

AUSTIN, Tex, Sept. l, 1891.
& To the Editor of The Statesman;
"A A recent communication to the Gal
N weston News took the position that
a only those amendments to the consti-
tuition voted on at the recent election
(which received majority of the total
votes cast at that election on all sub
iects are adopted, or, in other words,
that an amendment which received a
Smaiority of all the votes cast on that
Subject is not adopted, unless the ma
iority be also majority of all the
votes cast on any or all amendments.
The Austin correspondent of the Gal
weston News reported that it was I'M
derstood this view obtained in official
circles. The writer does not believe
that such a construction has been seri-
ously considered, much less adopted
by any official whose duty it will be
to pass on the result of the election,
though particular officials who are OPP
posed to some of the amendments
Nave no doubt circulated such view
and hope that it will obtain.
1t is my purpose to show from reason
and authority that such a construc-
IN of the provision of our constitu-
sion providing the manner of amend
ing is not tenable.
The material parts of the section
of the state legislature referred to
read as follows:
Sec. l. The legislature X = may
propose amendments to the constitu-
ton to be voted on by the qualified
alectors for members of
the legislature which proposed
amendments shall be duly published,
x And it shall be the duty Of
fine several returning officers of said
election to open poll for and make
returns to the secretary of state OF the
ESlmber of legal votes cast at said
election for and against said election,
and if more than one be proposed,
then the number of votes cast for and
AGAINST each of them; and if it shall
appear from said return that major
;fy of the votes cast have been cast in
favor of any amendment, the amend
ment so receiving majority OF Gne
votes cast shall become part OF GhiS
Substitution, and proclamation snail
fbe made by the governor thereof"
Cart. XVII, Sec. y.
The question at issue must turn on
the proper construction of the words
ssyotes castn in the clause reading
uand if it should appear from said re-
turn that a majority Of the votes cast
have been cast in favor of any amend
nent - etc. Do the words "votes
castu refer to votes cast at the election
Z Sn all subjects or to votes cast for ana
AGAINST the particular amendment,
Z the adoption of which may be under
consideration? Evidently the latter;
for the words "votes cast" is used In
Immediate connection with the subject
returns of votes cast in said election
for and against each amendmen1
considered separately and not IN con-
nection with joint or consolidated
.SSeturn of all the votes cast at SAID cleo
5tion for or against any and all OF the
amendments. The language IS, lana
If more than one proposed, then the
number of votes cast for and against
ZACH of them, and if it shall appear
from said returnn(that is from the last
return referred to which does not re-
late TO an aggregate vote on all the
amendments but to the votes Tor ana
AGAINST each of the amendments con-
!. Altered separately "that q majority
IL the votes cast" (that is for and
AGAINST any amendment the return as
tie each amendment being considered
senarately) "have been cast in favor
Of anv amendment, the amendment
SO receiving majority OF the votes
cast THAT is of the votes so cast 1or
and against said amendment as APP
pears from said return OF the NUMBER
ofyotes cast for and against each
! afnendment) "shall become parG OF
this constitution, etc:
This construction is IN accordance
with reason, common sense ana usage.
Nothing will be supposed 10 De
nlaced in a constitution unless IL is
intended to carry out some purpose OF
noliev of it's makers. 1t follows that
81 5ing should be supplied by con-
~ elton unless it is done to carry out
- supposed purpose of the provision
,strued. Now what purpose OF pol
lev can any one suggest as being IN
yiew if we construe the constitution
e require more than majority OF the
ties cast on particular amendment
to adopt such amendment. II the
purpose had been to require certain
i,ar cent of the entire vote OF the state
! tovote on a constitutional amendment
before it should be adopted, by ma
iority of those actually voting some