The Forrest City times., 1892-09-16
aMrxnMENr A No 2


 belief and information, even among those who supported and favored the amendment. as 10 whether or not it has been legally ratified. The Arkansas Gazette of Thursday presents the fol- lowing views on the question. which is one of great importance to the people.
 What is a majority, as applied to the ratification of n proposed amend ment to our State Constitution
 The vote on what is known as the ! 'Fishback Amendment submitted at the general election in September. 1880, showed large affirmative majority of the votes cast for and against the neas- ure. But the claim that It had been ratified was contested, the contention being that the proposed amendment had not received majority Of ali the votes cast at the election referred to. 1 Several decisions, notably one by the Supreme Court of Indiana, were ap- peaed to to sustain this view, which prevailed with the officials who can vassed and declared the result, though strongly combatted by eminent lawyers who held bare majority of the votes cast on the proposition sufficient
 We have been informed that since the decision in the 1udisna case deci- sions oD this question in State courts have run the other way, holding as cor rect the view of the supporters of the Fishback amendment.
 ''lt will be seen, therefore, that the Indiana decision has not been generally accepted, and the exact definition of the meaning of majority in this mat ter is still an open question, although apparently accepted in this State. Now that another proposed amendment, like that first voted on in 1880, has received majority of all the votes cast for and against it, while lacking majority of all the votes cast Tn the general cleo ton for State officers, the question arises which rule shall prevail? Amend ment No. 2-the poll tax amendment-- WAS voted on by large majority of the qualified electors who went to the polls on the 5th instant; and as the electors who failed to vote must be chased as holding no opinions thereon, the poll tax qualification can certainly be claim ed as having the approval of the major ity of the voters i'll the State The question is too important for the Speak CT of the House, who will canvass the vote, to blindly follow the Indiana opinion, even if supported by two or three other opinions. Thus far there has been no authoritative, thoroughly conclusive decision on this question" ;" It is now the opinion of prominent legal lights that the tenor of the deei sions in the various States having clauses in their Constitutions similar to our own, that majority of the votes cast on the amendment itself is suffi- cient to carry it.
 The Supreme Courts of Minnesota and Illinois have SD decided. the ques- tions raised being similar to our own. liC IdoCS diC tO bt- ltuHN III 0iliIiIs. 400; 20 Wisconsin,, 544; 100 Ills, i9o The Illinois decision is perhaps the strongest in favor of the position above taken. In this case, the construction of the Constitution by the legislature in its special statutory enactments is looked upon with favor by the court. In this State, after the Fishback amendment failed to pass the first time the General Assembly in sections 62i and 626 Mansfield's Dinest, provided that the vote on an amendment should be sealed by each county in a separate envelope and directed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, u be by him opened in the presence of the House, counted and declared.
 In the case of the present amendment he could but declare the amendment carried, as he has no cognizauce of any other vote cast than that on the amend ment, and as the amendment will have a majority Of about l5,000 in its favor it win be declared carried. In the event of d contest, the matter would have to go before the Supreme Court, when it would be finally settled.
 The Supreme Courts of Nebraska, !, tl7 Nebraska, lSS.) Ohio (46 Ohio. 677 and Indiana (59 Indiana, 505,l have held differently. but the Supreme Court of the United States Qll Carroll Coun- ty, Miss, vs. Smith, 556) favors the view taken by the Minnesota, Wiscon- sin and Illinois courts.
 Attorney -General-elect James F. Clarke expressed the following opinion as to the vote upon Amendment No. 2:
 II am satisfied that the amendment is legally adopted, and this is so not withstandng it has not received the support of majority of those who voted at the election held on the 5th inst, for other questions and officers, submitted at such election. am satis- fled the question of the number of votes necessary to adopt an amendment is m open question in the law, but am convinced that under our system and decisions that a majority of those vut- ing on the question only is required. The decisions and statutes on which this decision is based are too numerous to warrant even d reference to them here. The amendment is adopted, and those who have patience to wait will see it made part of the Constitution in due course.o