The commonwealth. (Greenwood, Miss.) 1896-1923, 1899-11-24
Constitutional Amendment.
Has 1t Been Adopted? That is
the Question.
The Views of Number OF Mis-
sissippi Jurists.

teu on AT the late election. failed q
be passed because Of a fallur,
OF a majority OF the qualified
electors voting at such election t.
vote for them II the election llat
peeh Il special one, at which the
amendments were the only thing,
voted on, necessarily a majority vot
my for them would Lave carried
them, but the election was for many
Officers, and as part Of this single
election the proposed amendment,
were voted on. There wa but one
election, and a majority OF the quail.
ned electors voting, in the puryieu
or The constitution, is a maiorjt,
voting at the election, which was
single Tor the several objects. This
obvious meaning OF the constitution
IS MADE clearer. If possible, by com.
paring the language Of the constltu.
tion OF 1890 with that OF 1869 on the
same subject. The constitution of
1862, AS did that Of 1891, required
that Il majority Of the qualified cleo
tors voting for members Of the legis-
lattirc should vote for IN amendment
IN order to carry 1t. That made it
necessary to submit proposed amend
inents at the election for members Of
the legislature. Under the constitu-
tioh or 1890 elections for members Of
the legislature are to occt only quad
rennially and for very MANY officers,
ana 1t was intended to provide that
amendments might be submitted at
any election at the VIII Of the legis-
%latllre, and hence the change in Ian.
gnhge to allow that. That is the on
" change on this subject made by
Tie new constitution, and It is in
credible that it was intended to put
IN tue power Of Il minority of those
voting at the election to effect the
important result of changing the
fundamental laws. In theory the
constitution is IL sacred thing, and
neither to be dlsregarded, nor alter
cd, except as it provides or permits.
and to hold that a minority Of those
voting at an election. at which an
amendment submitted to be voted on.
not being understood by many cleo
tors and therefore not voted on by
them, could carry the amendment,
Gems To me subverSive OF principle
and policy, Where the constitution
intends that II majority Of qualified
electors voting on u proposition shall
carry it, it is so declared in unmis.
taxable terms. AS in Sec. 27l.
by Sec. 80, "No county seat shall
be removed unless authorized by
two-tliirdS of the electors of the coun-
voting therefor; but when the pro-
posed removal shall be towards the
center of the county, it may be made
when II majority OF tie electors par
ticlpacing in the election shall vote
In n case two-thirds Of the cleo
Tors OF the county must vote therefor,
md in the other a majority Of those
Is sufficient. Sec. 260 presents
mother example of express provision
~ the constitution for "A majority of
hose voting on a given proposition
o carry it, From which it is seen
hat where it was intended to make
he votes of a majority Of those vUt-
ny on Il proposition sufficient, it is
'lainly declared. From which it
nay be concluded that, 'if it had
'een intended to make IA majority of
hose voting on Il proposed amend l
lent sufficient To pass IL. 1t would
ave been ST declared, and as it is not |
declared, it will not be SO held"
Apart from this reasoning, which '
Gems conclusive, it has been held by .
he courts OF Nebraska, Ohio, Cali.
'rnia, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, 5
nd perhaps other states, that the |
)rcgOing view is the correct one. .
he, have been a few contrary decls- u
bpt they are far from satIslacto- /
7. The overwhelming weight of an r
lority is in favor OF the view above q
resented. I
Although an advocate Of the plan u
elecling judges and all other Off r.
'rS, | think IL fortunate that the j.
amendments did not receive II
le requisite number Of popular votes a
carry them, for several reasons. 1t d
matter of grave doubt, II they p
ould not be condemned for not be- c
Z submitted separately, so the sew '
al distinct propositions might have 81
'en voted OF separately. | kdow it IL
IS been asserted very positively that
Is doubt is removed by crrtain de- u
Slons cited, | have read these de- 81
'ions aud they fell far short Of re. ~
owing my doubts on the subject. III
Mess my Inability to see how the u
lendments could be operated prac. 10
II adopted. Let any mar try tc
frame a law to tit the conditions "
til the amendments adopted and at
Will meet difficulties, | am sure. oi
&c amendments contemplate ''reg- &c
'r judicial elections and ''clec-
MS to ill Vacancies" and yet while az
abrogtte certain sections Of the WI
is%titution, they leave In full for 2 rlt
ton III, which provides for IA mi
ntment by the governor when va. Vo
lcies occur during a c of the on
late, This section was overlooked tlt
en- framing the amendment. IN
Il cannot be said to be repealed, no
the amendments specify by num-. to'
the sections to be repealed, and it TN
| rule of logic aud OF law that the &c
Of one thing is the exclu- cie
u of another. Erpressio mnius er. eie
$40 diterivs. Behold the incongru- SUI
OF 4 constitution thus patched !
the amendments require a su'
~ nomination by districts. aud Iiu
by the whole State. Where le'