The record-union., 1893-06-23
lie to the case in hand, what are the re-

salts?
section l of Article XVIII. provides
that amendments to the Constitution
May De proposed in either house, and that
Il IWo- thlTGs OF the members of each
mousse shall vote in ldvor thereof, it shall
be submitted to the people. lin such
manner, and at such time, and after such
puolcation, as may be deemed ex-
pedlent." 1t then provides that if the
people shall approve and ratity such
dhehoinent by ma jority of the quallhed
electors voting thereon, such anne ndment
snail become part of the Constitution.
ms section contains the general pro-
visions for amending the Constitution.
by Section OF Article y Y. the city of
sacramento Is declared to be the seat of
government until changed by law, etc.
Inc Constitution of lS49, which was
superseded by the present Constitution,
contained this same provision in the fol-
lowing language (Section l, Article NI.):
The first session of the Legislature shall be
helo at the Pueblo de San Jose, which place
shall be the permanent seat of government un-
III removed by law; provided, however, that
tWo-thlrds OF all the members elected to each
house OF the Legislature shall concur IN the
passage of such law.
1t will be observed. however, that the
present Constitution contains the addi-
tIonaI provision that the law changing
the seat OF government shall not be valid
unless ratified by majority of all the
qualified electors of the State voting in
favor thereof at general State election.
Conceding that the proposed amend
ment under consideration complies with
the provisions of Section l of Article
ANlII., under which it was adopted, and
that 1t shall be ratified by q majority of
the qualified electors of the State voting
thereon at the approaching general cleo
uon, thereby becoming part Of the Con
stltution, what will be the result? We
Will have the Constitution declaring that
The city OF San Jose is the seat of govern
ment, and at the same time the actual seat
OF government must remain at the city of
sacramento until the passage of law
under the provisions of Section | of Ar
ucle M, as it now stands. Obviously
no such absurdity was ever contemplated
by the trainers Of the fundamental law.
Can Senate Constitutional Amendment
NO. - be construed to be a law within
the meaning of Section /, Article X X?
| do not think So Section Is of Article
~ of the Constitution provides that,
NO law shall be passed except by bill.
Nor shall any bill be put upon It's final
passage until the same, with the amend
ments thereto, shall have been printed
Tor the use OF the members; nor shall any
bill become law unless the same be
read on three several days in each house,
'tA4ASSos IL NteoO VI VI SbllC( tMO-lnlIuS OF
the house where such bill may be pend
ing shall, by vote OF yeas and nays,
dispense with this provision"
Section l6 OF Article ". provides that,
Every bill which may have passed the
Legislature shall, before it becomes
law, be presented to the Governor"
Judged by these provisions, the pro-
posed amendment is not a law. 1t was
never printed for the use of the members
of the two houses; it was notiread on
three several days in each house: nor
was 1t ever presented to the Governor. [
am aware that, in case of urgency, the
reading on three several days may be
dispensed with by a two-thirds vote. as
above provided; but there is no constitu-
tlonal authority Tor dispensing with the
printing OF a bill. The language Of the
Constitution is too plain to need CON
structlon; 1t IS expressly this provision.
!. e.: the reading on three several DAYS.
that may be dispensed with, and no
other. If different practice, wiz: that
OF suspending all the provisions of Ar
ucle ", Section l5) has grown up, the
sooner it is abandoned and the law-nlak-
ing power returns to the requirements of
the fundamental law the better for all
parties concerned.
Section y of Article |. declares: 1.-THE
provisions ofthis Constitution are manda-
tory and prOhlbltOry, unless by EXPRESS
words they are declared to be otherwise"
And IN the language of Judge Cooley: IF
the Legislature habitually disregard il
that provlsion), it seems to us that there
is all the more urgent necessity that the
courts should enforce it," Cooley on
Constitutional Limitations, second edi-
tion, I+9.)
There are other differences to be con-
sidered. The general provisions Of Sec
ton | Of Article XVIII. authorize the
proposed amendment to DO submitted to
the people at any time: it may be at a
special election; while the law changing
the seat OF government. under Section /
of Article X X, must only be submitted
at a general State election. Under tho
former section, bare majority of each
house, with the approval of the Governor.
may enact law liking the period ofpub-
Hcatlon and providing the manner of sub
mlttlng the same to the people; while
under the latter section the question of
changing the seat of government can
only be submitted to the people. "uuder
such regulations and provisions as the
Legislature by twO-thirds vote of each
house may provide"
There IS still another difference he
tween the requirements of the two sec
tlons. Under SectiOnl of Article XVIII.
If the people approve and ratify the pro-
posed amendment by majority of the
~
amendment thereby becomes a part of
the Constitution. L understand this Ian
guage to mean, that if in the whole State
10000 qualified electors vote upon the
proposition of adopting the amendment.
and o,UUI vote III favor thereof il is
thereby approved and ratified and be-
comes part of the Constitution.
Under Section l Of Article XX,. if the
law providing for change of the seat Of
government is submitted to the people
and Is ratified and approved, "bv a ma
Jorty OF the qualified electors of the State
voting therefor" the seat of Government
IS thereby changed, and Section l of Arti
Gle AA. is etfectually amended. | nm
derStand the requirements of this section
10 De, that II the whole number of uuali-
fed electors in the State Is 30, 900. at least
l35,00l must vote in favor OF the chance
before 1t is carried without regard to t6e
whole number voting
1he trainers OF the Constitution. in the
Light of past experience, hedped abont
the seat OF government with these consti-
tutional safeguards against hastv and i'll
advised removals thereof Had thev
been gifted with the spirit of Dronbesv
they could not have provided with
greater care against the emergency that
has arisen.
| conclude that 'Senate Constitutional
Amendment No. 23' is not a law within
the meaning of Section ! of Article Xxx
and that if adopted and ratified bv the
people it would be Intellectual for the
purpose contemplated by its authors.
.. The last objection urged by the
plaintiff to the validity of Senate Con-
stitutioEal Amendment No. 23'' is that
no law was passed by the Legislature
submitting the same to the vote of the
people.
In the case of Hatch VS.. Stoneman (66
Cal. 634), the Supreme Court had under
consideration Section of Article XVIII.
OF the present Constitution; and thev
there construed the language by which it
is made the duty of the Legislature to
'su bmlt such proposed amendment