The leader., 1900-06-06

reads: whenever two-thirds of each
House of the Legislature shall deem a
change, alteration or amendment nee.
essary to this Constitution, such pro.
posed change, alteration or amendment
shall be read and passed by two-thirds
vote of each house, respectively, on
each day for three successive days;
public notice shall then be given by
the Secretary of State at least three
months preceding an election, at which
the qualified electors shall vote direct
ly for or against such change, altera-
ton or amendment; and if more than
one amendment shall be submitted at
one time, they shall be submitted in
such manner and form that the people
may vote for or against each amend
ment separately; and if it shall appear
that majority of the qualified elect
! ors voting shall have voted for the
proposed change, alteration or amend
ment, then it shall be inserted by the
next succeeding Legislature as part
of the Constitution, and not other
wise"
1t will be noted that the Constitu-
ton of 1890 omits, after the words
voting "for members of the Legisla-
ture" and the section of the Con
stitution in the Secretary of States
office shows that there should be a
comma after the word voting" in
section 273, as it now stands. The
significant fact thus stands out like
mountain in landscape that, for the
whole period from 1917 to 1890, the
Constitution of the State, having been
four times changed during such
period period of seventy three years
of State history the people of this
State, speaking through their sover-
eign instrument, the Constitution, had
uniformly declared that no majority
of electors less than majority of
those voting for members of the Legis-
lature which election would bring out,
it was presumed, the largest number of
electors should avail to change the
organic law of the land The law
reaches with its protection everyone in
the State. Unlike an act of the Legis-
lature, which may or may not be gen
eral, its effectiveness is UNIVERSAL; its
potency reaches in its power the terri
torial limits of the whole State and
protects all rights of life, liberty and
property Hereunder this charter of
liberty, this ark of the covenant, the
people for seventy three years had said
shall not be lightly touched or care
lessly changed. That law expressly
provided that such change could be
effected only by vote of majority of
all votes for members of the Legis-
lature. How did this clause, for mem
bers of the Legislature" come to be
dropped? 1t was dropped simply and
only because sessions of the Legisla-
ture were then, and thereafter to be,
quadrennial.
In view Of this fact the trainers of
the Constitution wisely foresaw, it
seems, that if one Legislature had to
propose an amendment and the sue
ceeding Legislature had to insert it,
that if a constitutional amendment
could only be submitted when mem
bers of the Legislature were to be
voted for, there would result posi-
tive inhibition of an election on the
question of adopting constitutional
amendment except at intervals of at
least every four years, and it might
very likely occur that period of eight
years might intervene between the
submission of an amendment and its
insertion in the Constitution. That
50 long period of time should be al
lowed to stand in the way of a demand
for change in the Constitution made
eXigent by some great public necessity
was wholly unreasonable. 1t might be
that a constitutional amendment
ought to be submitted at special
election held for that purpose only.
The public necessity might be such
that not waiting for a special election
such amendment should be submitted
at some regular election for State
officers or at a congressional election.
llC III uOlulLS al tltCllOl Oll
the question of adopting constitu-
tional amendment was not vital. The
majority by which the public policy of
the State had always declared such
amendment could alone be adopted
was vital. Time can be fixed to suit
the convenience of the voters. The
great fundamental condition, the re-
quiSite ma jOrity, was to remain essen
tialiV lInaI topo1 yup,,l1 ha i'm,
ing to the wise trainers of the Consti- !
tuition of 1890 the greatest folly to
suppose that they meant to reverse the |
policy that this State for seventy odd |
years held as to the majority to adopt |
a constitutional amendment, when the
real purpose of the omission of the |
words for members of the Legisla- |
ture" lies on the very surface of the |
and was manifestly as
stated the result alone of the fact that |
sessions of the legislature were then
quadrennial. If an election should be |
held to determine alone whether the
should be amended or
would, in such case, necessarily be a
of those voting for or against
the adoption of the amendment, and
affects the soundness of our holding
that whether the vote on constitu-
tional amendment occurs on day
when State officers are also voted for,
there must be majority of all the
electors voting that day for anything
to make valid the adoption of the
as is expressly held in
vs.. Judge, los Mich, sos.
Manifestly the Constitution itself in
section 273 expressly declares that no
shall be adopted except
where it shall be fact that it re
ceived at the election majority of
all those qualified. voting. We have "a
positive rule prescribed and fixed
standard set up and nothing short of
strict compliance with the rule will
avail to change the organic law.
There is one other most important
=, 4 ~