The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-21

the state: but in tho .. Con- stitution of ls1s there was no provision for, a call of . Convention. The Con- stttutions of 1865 and 1883 contained a provision, differing slightly in inmate rial particulars, substantially similar to Section of the present Constitu-
 ton of 1875; but the Constitution of 1881. adopted at what is commonly known as the Secession Convention, was totally dissimilar and antagonistic in it's provisions defining the oftice and authority of the General Assembly with respect to a Convention, to those of the Constitutions of 1865, 1888 and 1875. The provision in the Constitution of 1881 is as follows: Provided further. that Convention of the people of the State may be called by a vote of two-thirds of each branch of the General Assem-
 bly under such rules and regulations as the legislature may prescribe to Amend the Constitution. or for any othcf pur- pose.' Who can doubt in the light or history that the powers of the leSisla-
 ture under the Constitution Of 1901
 were most materially restricted anu limited and even prohibited by the Constitutions of 1865. 1868 and 1875 formed after the close of the war be-
 tween the States Who can question the doctrine under the Constitutions of 1865. 186S and 1875, that the delegates to Constitutional Convention derive their authority and commission and
 powers from the sovereign people cf the State and not from the legislature, or from any improperly so called En- ablins Act" of the legislature? Can department of the State government not vested with the authority to confer a power, but positively prohibited from and which 2u-
 thority is expressly and solely vested in the people. limit the powers of the
 highest legislative assembly recog-
 nized by law" in a representative Democratic form" of government di-
 rectly called into existence by that body in whom the ultimate sovereign
 ty resides? Goodrich vs. Moore, 3 Minnesota, p. 61. It would be an un- necessary consumption of time to com
 ment on and critically examine the several decisions of the courts relied
 upon to sustain the contrary conten-
 ton of MT Jameson and other like new
 "doctrinaires." as a consideration of
 most of them will demonstrate that the question involved was not presented, or
 decided, and that no legitimate con- clusion can be drawn thereerom antag-
 onistic to the doctrine contended for
 m this opinion. The opln;on delivered
 by Chief Justice Agnew in the case of
 Wells vs. Baine. 75 Penn. pp. :9-oS, is the leading and strongest presentation
 of this doctrine of Legislative power,
 and upon which the greatest stress is laid by the advocates for thl' power
 of the Legislature. The facts of that case essential to the comprehension of
 the question before the Court were that
 the legislature of Pennsylvania on June 2. 1871, passed an act to submit to
 popular vote the question of calling
 Convention by the legislature to amend
 the Constitution without any special
 warrant in the existing Constitution of
 that State, and which contained no pro-
 vision for amending the Constitution.
 save by the action of the legislature
 followed by a ratification of the 2eo-
 pie, and this action of the legislature
 in submitting the question Of the call
 ing of a Convention was referred 10 and based upon It's general legislative
 rt wers; Q that the question, as stated Tn the opinion of the Court on page SO,
 passed upon by the vote of the people,
 was only that of the expediency of a
 call to be subsequently, made by the
 legislature: and if the question was
 answered in the affirmative, in the lan-
 guage of the Court. the people simply
 replied you (the legislature) may call
 Convention. This was all the vote
 expressed" In April. 1872. the legisla-
 ture passed an act to provide for the
 calling of Convention and among oth-
 CT things provided that the Convention
 submit the amendments agreed to by
 1t to the qualified voters of the State
 for their adoption or rejection; and fur
 ther enacted that such election should
 be conducted by the officers and in the
 manner general elections are held in
 the Commonwealth. The Convention
 passed an ordinance that the election
 should be. held in the city of Phila- delphia by certain persons therein call
 ed commissioners, other than those re-
 quired by law to hold general elections.
 and giving to the commissioners some-
 what fuller and different powers. Two
 bills in equity were filed against these commissioners of election-one by Wells
 and other citizens and voters of Phil
 adelphia and the other by one Of the inspectors of election under the gen. eral laws of the State governing gen. eral elections. averring the iEvalidity
 of the ordinance and praying an in- Junction against the commission ITS re- straining them from holding sad clec- ton. The Chief Justice, in his opinion construing the purpose of the act of the legislature in submitting the ques- ton of calling a Convention to vote
 of the people on pp. 50 and u, rses the following language: "The rIesent
 inquiry is not how much power may
 be conferred by law, but what power
 was conferred on this Convention. A law must be passed according to the forms of the Constitution. One ot these Is that no bill shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly CX- pressed in it's title. The title O. the act of June 2. 1871. Is An Act. To au- thorize a popular vote upon the ques- ton of calling a Convention to amend the Constitution of Pennsylvania. The text of the act is: That the question of calling a Convention to amend the Constitution of the Commonwealth be submitted to a vote of the people at the general election to be held, etc. The one subject of both title and text Is the question of calling a Convention. That
 question was authorized to be submit ted to a popular vote. In that t, ection each elector expressed his individual opinion on that question and that eione by voting for convention or against
 a Convention This question was an- swered in the affirmative by a major ity of votes, and the people answering
 the legislature said: You may call a Convention. This was all the vote ex- pressed. Each vote expressing the opinion of the elector on that question, the majority expressed no more. Thus
 an analysis of the act. both in title and in text demonstrates that the vote was
 not a delegation of power except to the
 legislature. The result of that vote | haf aOtQ1atuPa r11fpbf can a