The commonwealth. (Greenwood, Miss.) 1896-1923, 1899-12-08

s-'~
which the qualified ele tors shall vote
FOR or against the pro, Of d amendment.
/. II a majority OF the qualified cleo
tons voting shall vote tor the proposed
amendment it shall be inserted, Car
J there be a particle Of doubt that lh'
voting in the last sentence refers u
the vote in the first
Is II possible to construe the word
voting not to refer 10 the only voting
mentioned or limited at IN the section,
b It to mean some other kind Of voting
not referred TO, provided tor or hiuted al
In the entire section
IF some other kind of extent of ma.
jority were intended to be provided
tor. would not the convention have fol
lowed the example Of that Of 1865 and
specified the majority to be Of those
voting for governor, or sheriff, or rep.
r~esentatives, or generally OF all the
votes cast At the same time with those
for or against the proposed amendment
whether on II at question or otherwise
This wonld have b .en plain and specific.
Bnt | submit it Is impossible to iuirrpO.
late these words into section 213 rs
must be done ii we adopt the views of
those who claim the amendment was
not legally adopted.
THE convention Of 1890 made il
PHI in enough; they provide in one snort
section for a separate election on one
mhject. at which the qualified electors
shall vote for oragalnsl II proposition.
Ia the same section it provides that Il
majority OF such electors voting that
IL the electors voting for or against the
measureI shall be sufficient to adopt it.
As ! stated in the outset it is com
paratlyely useless to cite authority on
this question unless we car find a law
containing exactly the anne language
! have hsen surprise | to see lawyers of
ability and learning citing Hawkins V
Carroll Co 80 Mississippi, i3j, as n
point,
Section II of article u of the on
stltution of 1869, the construction Of
which was involved in that case. pro,
vides that the Legislature shall not ATT
thorize any county, city or town t0 be
coine n stakeholder in or lend as Its aid
to any corporation, etc, unless two
thirds of the qualified voters Of such
county, city or town, at a special eIec
lion, or regular election to be held
therein shall assent thereto Aud the
question was whether this meant two
thirds OF the qualified voters IA shown
by the registration books, or two thirds
of the qualified voters voting at such
election.
''Our supreme court. | think properly
held that it meant two thirds of the
qualified voters AS appeared from the
registration, Yet the supreme court of
the United States in Carroll Co, vs..
Smith III U. *. Rep, $50, overruled
this decision and held that even this
language two thirds Of the qualified
voters meant two. thirds of such voters
voting at the election provided for, and
though the question here involved was
not distinctly raised yet the u. :. sn
preme court held rt-it the tw0.third> Of
the qualified voters voting meaRt Of
those voting on the particular question
The court citing the cases of st. Joseph
w. Rogers, rs Wallace G44,
and Cass Co vs.. johnson 81 L. $. Rep,
800, cases constituting the constitution
and laws of Illinois and Missouri ire
curing, as N constitution of 1869 did
u majority of 'two-thirds Of the quail
fed sgters of such county, city or town
to vote nd I 'Fallroa | corporations, 20
on to say An ypalIh,g yotsr. who alb
sent themselves from an elEGtj8p duly |
are presumed to assent tG tbs |
will, Of the majority of those voting I'M
less the law providing for the election
otherwise declares. And | submit this
reasoning is founded on good sense and
sound Iagic
If, in the cage Of p separate special
on the prGEoSed amendment
alone under SECTION 9f4, y majority OF
those voting on that question Is sYf
md all those dissent from tie
probably by illness or aGci
dent, or otherwise involuntarily), are
presumed to assent to the act of a SIN III
majority of q small vote, (which will
not be denied under the plain language
IF section a13), how much more will
hose qualified electors who vote at a
= anemf election fpF . Iot of justices and
cnr0neF, etc. ana yet dGlh
arately decline TO vote for or againa "A
constitutional amendment printed on
he same ticket and staring them in the
ace, and expressly asking them to vote
thereon and ]instructing them how to
their wish IN the premises, be
presumed to assent to the vote
VI those who feel enough interest in the
natter TO examine the question and
'btb ~"fot'o, ..a'nst'. In nine cases out
# ten those Wtlhs TO. candidates. etc.
t an election but !detiihin5' to , ats at
II on'a' proposed amendment to the Oh
,apic Law, DO 30 SOLELY on account of !
ignorance on the subject, being willing !
hat those who have studied the sub. ,
cot and can vote iptelisentIy, shall de-
ide tho fate at the PFQRoset measure, ]
Il respectfully submit with due dot
renee to distinguished lurists who dif .
or from my conclusions, that Vt the
tie election held under the provisions
{ section 213 of the constitution OF I
Mississippi, ut which the qualified cleo i
YRS voted directly for or against the G
constitutional amendment a )
'~ajority OF those so voting, cast their g,
,tes in its favor, which in my opinion,
the plainest construction OF the sec y
is all that is required, 70 require
~ other larger or diff rent kindot ma
'rity, we must interpolate into the con Il
language of the character of e.
lat in the constitution of 1869, which T.
reuudiated by the convention of
40, ,and y. being wholly omitted was.
fhr'well knoyE rule of law, re. :.
Uai nisn -, III
Sutherland on statutory c5tstlutj, u
NJ ~; dhd numerous c.ses citeii2., d
- T''' -.-.--L I-lA-.
lhIAIiE INCINENT We