The leader., 1900-06-06
UNCONSTITUT IONAL!
clarcd by the Unanimous
Opinion of the SUI
preme Court.
The Question JudiciaI-Fonr Amend
ments Submitted Adopted A.
the Constitution Provides.

/ Special to The Times Democrat.
Jackson, May 30-The Supreme
Court this morning handed down an
opinion in the Noel amendment test
case, sustaining the decision of the
Lincoln county Circuit Court, which
held that the amendment was invalid.
/ The decision was handed down by
Chief Justice Whitfield, his two asso.
ciates concurring. The opinion is re
garded here as being very able one,
and as settling in conclusive manner
the legal questions connected with the
case. The opinion of the court, in
brief, holds ~ that the questions con.
nected with the adoption and submis-
sion of the amendment are judicial,
and not political, and therefore review
able by the courts; e. that the amend
ment was improperly submitted, there
being at least four amendments in the
one submitted, instead of one, as re
amendment did not receive the consti-
tutional majority, the constitutional
section demanding a majority of all
the voters voting at the election, in.
stead of those voting on the amend
ment alone. 1t will thus be seen that
the contention of the attorneys who
opposed the amendment was sustained
in every case.
The effect of the decision is to wipe
out the amendment and the legislation
putting it into effect. The judiciary
is restored TO its old position, and ap-
pointments of judges and chancellors
will be necessary when their old terms
expire, the appointments made on
May 10, under the provisions of the
law Incorporating the amendment,
being of no effect. Gov. Longino will
thus be called upon to fill good many
judicial vacancies this year. as large
number of terms expire.
The full text of the opinion deliv-
cred by Judge Whitfield is, in part, as
follows:
State of Mississippi ex rel. Monroe
McClurg, Attorney General, VS. Robert
Powell.
Three questions are presented for
solutions:
|. Is the question whether the prop
ositiOn submitted to the voters for
adoption, as part of the Constitution,
one amendment or more than one
amendment, judicial question and
likewise is the question whether such
proposition received the majority pre-
scribed by the Constitution as essen
tial to its valid adoption a judicial
question?
.. If these questions are judicial
questions, was the proposition one
amendment or two or more amend
ments and as necessarily involved
herein, was the proposition submitted
in the way the Constitution impera-
lively requires it to be submitted?
3. Was the proposition adopted by
the majority of qualified electors pre-
scribed by the Constitution as essen
tial to the adoption of an amendment
thereto?
AS to the first proposition we are
clear that both questions are judicial
questions. This is placed beyond cavil
as the settled doctrine of this State by
Greene VS.. Weller, 81 Miss, and
Sproule VS.. Frederick, 50 Miss, 1913.
The same responses given by an over
whelming weight of authority from
other States. In the eighth volume of
American and English Encyclopedia
of Law, at page 9OS, second edition, it
is said:
"The courts have full power to de-
clare that an amendment to the Con
has not been properly
adopted, even though it has been so
declared by the political department
of the State
The Constitution can be amended in
but two ways-by the people assem-
bled in constitutional convention or
by observing the constitutional meth
DDS marked out in section 273 of the
of 1890. When the latter
mode of amending the Constitution is
sought to be followed, the conditions
upon which alone the amendment can |
become a part of the Constitution are
prescribed in said section
ion itself, the paramount and supreme
aw of the land that such amendment |
cannot become part of the Constitu-
ion unless two facts were existent |
First, unless such amendment, or
amendments, should be submitted in |
he mode pointed out; second, unless |
such amendment, or amendments, |
should be adopted by the majority |
These two conditions are
facts which must exist, in truth and in |
reality, and not simply be declared to
exist by the Legislature, whether they
do exist or not. The Legislature is
not given the power as a special trib-
unal to count the votes, canvass the
returns, declare the result and make
the amendment part of the Constitu-
ton by proclamation. All that it
does, all that it can do, is in the first
instance to propose the amendment,
or amendments, to the people for their
vote in the way the Constitution di-
reefs. 1t is for the people, and the
people alone, to say by the majority
prescribed in the Constitution whether
they adopt or reject the proposed
or amendments. Amend
ments which are adopted owe their
vitality to the action of the people
that action to be had in &C.
L L