The age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1897-1902, 1899-04-28
CAMPBELL'S VIEWS
On Right of Legislature to Repeal the
Call.

To the Editor of The Age-Herald:
There seems to be respectable authority
for the contention that the general assem-
bly, cannot recall from the people the ques-
ton as to whether convention shall be
held to revise the constitution
After the adoption, by the legislatures of
the several states, of the eleventh amend
ment to the federal constitution, ques-
ton was raised in the case of Hollings-
worth vs. Virginia in the supreme court of
the United States as to the validity of the
said amendment upon the ground that the
resolution of congress proposing the amend
ment had not been submitted to the pres-
dent for his appreciation. The attorney
general, in answering the questions raised,
urged that congress was vested with the
power of proposing amendments, and The
exercise of the power was evidently "a
substantive act, unconnected with the
binary business of legislation and not
within the policy or terms of investing the
president with a qualified negative on the
acts and resolutions of congress-" The
court held that the amendment had been
properly adopted. The case is reported In
Dallas 378, and was decided over one
hundred years ago. In that case Chase,
justice, said: 1.-THE negative of the presi-
dent applies only to the ordinary cases of
legislation; he has nothing to do with the
proposition or adoption of amendments to
the constitution" This view has been
maintained by congress as regards subse-
duent amendments, notably in the matter
of the amendment proposed in 1865 with
reference to slavery A resolution was then
adopted by the senate declaring that the
approval of the president to the proposed
amendment was unnecessary. In the re-
port of the case of Collier. governor, VS..
Frierson, "a Ala 100 1t was conceded by
counsel on both sides that the governors
approval of resolutions submitting amend
ments was unnecessary. The apnellant'S
counsel said: 'It Is not necessary that The
governor should approve the act, for the
vote required to pass 1t overrides the ex-
ecutive veto, if 1t were attempted to be
interposed," and counsel for appellee, who
was the great lawyer R. H. Smith, said:
'The people create the constitution, the
constitution creates the legislature; 1t con-
fines it to ordinary legislation. to which
the governor must assent; 1t gives 1t pow
er to propose amendments to the consti-
tuition to which the governor is no actor
and he cites the above named case of Hol-
lingsworth vs.. Virginia Dallas, as sus-
tanning his view. He further says that
the legislature in this regard "are not law
makers, but law-suggestors, and then law
ratifers; the people are the makers and re-
makers of the constitution" In the courts
opinion 1t Is said: 1.-THE joint resolutions
adopted at the session of 1844-5 proposed
eight amendments to the constitution. By
the act approved 24th January 1915. 1t was
made the duty of the sheriffs and other Of
ficers experimenting the election to re-
uuire the electors to vote only on two of
the amendments offered, neither of which,
however embraced the amendment pro-
posed in relation to the 23d section of the
fourth article; but as the constitution gave
the elector the right to vote on all OF the
amendments the act of 1915 could not de-
prlye him of this right" The question as
to whether the governors signature was
necessary to the validity of the joint res
olutions is not discussed, but If the court
had considered 1t to be So they would no
doubt have put their decision upon that
point .,
Tn Jameson on constitutional conventions,
n work by the way, which receives high
commendation from Judge Cooley in his
great work on constitutional limitations,
saws that when legislative action consists
simply in Affirming by a resolution IN
tended as step only preparatory to fur
Their and other action either of that or
some other body the expediency of amend
ing the constitution or in merely preparing
such amendments as 1t deems desirable,
such action cannot properly be called
Legislative. (Section 549.)
This author then proceeds to say that
upon this point we are not without au-
thority to which great respect is due" and
quotes Mr.. Webster's language In the
Massachusetts convention of 1920, where
the latter said In reference to the leglsla-
ture's power to propose amendments:
This was not an exercise OF legislative
power-it was only referring to Some
to the people," And the author also quotes
similar language used in the Virginia con-
vention Of 1929. Following the case OF