The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-21


 stones on which rested the reasoning, conclusion and decision of the court that the Legislature. and not the ps-e- pie, was the source of the authority and commission of the Convention and that the definition, extent and lmis and scope of it's powers and the manner method and regulation of their exercise must be found alone in the subsequent act calling the Convention. This ts further shown by similar expressions used by the same Chief Justice h the analogous case of Woods appeal in same volume of Pennsylvania Reports D. T. This is also clearly demon- strated by MT. Jameson in approving the construction and reaching the cons cIusion expressed by him in the fol- lowing quotation from his work: "that in all cases when a Convention act is submitted to the people 1t is the mere question of expediency that Is passed on by the people. An affirmative vote declares it to be expedient and nesa- tive vote declares 1t to be inexoedient for the Legislature to call such Con- yention: a declaration which has rtith- CT the effect or form of law. The lan- guage of law is '-fiat," be it done. that such a vote of the people is "Vidas IT. it seems good-"desideradum est 1t IS to be desired--a mere expression or q wish, not the uttering of a commaud. And in a subsequent section ne am- phasizes this view and follows the iah- auage quoted from Wells vs. fssihe supra. to the effect that such votc CT inc people has no binding force on the Legislature and that body has sun the power and authority at It's VIII anu measure to call, or not to call Coh. vention. and if called the Legislature has the sole sovereign power Tn tne act calling the Convention, or m SUD seouent act passed before the assefnp' ling of the Convention. to denne' nA and regulate the powers and purp ''ss of the Convention and the mode, ncth- nd and time of their exefcise ny LII. Convention. It therefore appears .' me that 1t would be the neishe Dt logical iuristic reasoning to assert tns such a construction could poss.p'y De placed on the provision or our VII stitution expressly proniotlnhs
 General Assembly from caiiins !. SV n. yention and directly conferrnS oh s neon,e alone the authority 8 declare peremptoriIy by a majority vote tno inc "Convention shall be heh.' That such a construction cannot he gwen to the provision of the Consti.ution vI the State of Alabama is the keystone cr the arch of this argument mainly suP- porting the correctness If this opinioh and must be my excuse for invcklhS it's further consideration by you. The power to propose amendments by the Legislature as prescribed hv the Sth- stitution. or the power n sunnit- to u' 7 vote of the people for their sole ana sovereign determination that a Con- yention shall be held. does not eonrer the power to break it either in thu uct proposing the amendment or in the act submitting the question of Conventioi to the people any more tam tc legs late on any subject contrVv to Ills provisions.
 State vs. Swift 69 Ind. D. 51s-i3.
 Now let US consider the par. which under our present Constitution fte General Assembly may act m amend ing the Constitution. It :s evident that it's part is restricted to the pro- posal of amendments In the form ond manner prescribed by Sectlon l of the Constitution. This provision must be strictly construed and if the form and order in which the proposal of amend merts is disregarded Dy the Legisla- ture it is approved doctrine that the proposed amendment will be invalid. null and void. A strict observance Of every substantial requirement in this special grant by the Constitution ls en- joined. .oo.
 Collier ys. Frierson 94 Ala. D. 200: Koehler vs Hill 50 Iowa. D.: S4S; Oak land Paving Co.,, vs. Hilton 6S Cal. D. 479.
 It is useless to multiply citations to this effecs as this is the accepted doc- Urine. Now if the General Assembly is restricted by this special grant or power to the specific mo 1e. form and manner of proposing amendments. II necessarily follows that all other meth ods, form and manner, either dlrect'v or indirectly. are prohibited to the Gen eral Assembly aS a matter or right ana power in such body. h othet Woros inc mower and authority 10 propos" spe- cific amendments, being restricted and limitel in the special grant to .ha -spe- cified way. the General Assembly can not directly. or indirectly say. as matter of power and authority, what a Constitutional Convention, receiving it's commission and authority and power frcm the vote of majority oi the sovereign people. shall or shall nor place into the fundamental law oI the State. The Constitution thus expressly prohibits the exercise of any such pow CT and authority by the General As- sembly. It's only function as to a;nend- ments, or revision. of the Consti- tuition is limited to -he initia- tive of proposals Of speclnec amendments as prescribed In the Constitution, and tue initiative oi a proposal to be submitted to the peo- ple for a Convention to be held--not to be called by the General Assembly-to revise and amend, or alter, the whole Constitution. Therefore, every other function Is expressly, or impliedly, prohibited by the Constitution. An :In- piled prohibition Is as effectual Us on express one.
 IA R. I. page 654: Taylor vs. Place, 4 R. L. D. 324.
 The Constitution thus limiting the power of the General Assembly to ihe proposal of specific amendments and which proposals must he passed j1 a particular way before suUmissiol to the people, if the General Assembly can dictate to the Constitutional Con- yention what amendments shall. or shall not be made, then It follows that the General Assembly would indirect ly be clothed with the power to enact amendments; such construction in it's last analysis would empower the Leg islature to do that which the CoESti- tuition by the limitation on it's power forbids 1t to do. It is a question of power and authority solely-wnere Is il lodged by our Constitution? There are limitations by the express provision 0! our Constitution and form O. Slate government on the General Ass 9mb,y-