The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-12-06
INSISTS It PASSED.
Jacobson Argues That the Gross
Earnings Law Has Been
Legally Adopted.
On the Other Hand, the Attorney
General Says a Majority
.r Isn't Enough. -. .
4 rs per cent gross earnings law passed

ne 4 per cent gross earnings law passed
after all. s~@ ~ .G-
II. Jacobson. author of the law submitted
In November. r...s - 90 r. er.. s. ~"
Ir letter to The Jour.nal Mr..
Jacobson maintains that the gross earn
ings law needed only a majority of the
votes cast on that proposition. AS it got
about ten votes to every one cast against
it. such a construction would mean that
the bill is now a law. #
The section OF the constitution which
provides for submitting a railroad gross
earnings proposition to the people is
found In Article ", section 80. 1t has 40
relation to Article XIV, which provides
for amendments to the constitution. This
article was amended In 1898 so that a ma
'jority Of all the votes cast at an election
was necessary to the passage of an
amendment No change was made in the
other section. Mr.. Jacobson contends that
1T is in pract ically the same form as Ar
tice XIV. before it was amended. The
word ''alP' is omitted and therefore the
proposition never required more than a
majority of the votes cast ton that subject,
regardless Of the total vote.
Mr.. Jacobson's argument Is as follows:
Mr.. Jacobson's Statement
1.-The four per cent gross earnings law
Is adopted.
You and others who have commented
on the result Of the late election as re-
CARDS the fate of the four per cent gross
earnings law certainly labor under a mis-
apprehension as to the constitutional re-
qu1rements You place this in the same
class as a constitutional amendment which
1T is not. Section 80 (a) of Article "
Of the constitution that provides for the
amendment or change of the gross earn
fngs law reads in part as follows:
Before the same shall take effect or be
IN, 1>1rr l.
people of the state. and be adopted and
ratified by a majority of the electors Of
the state voting at the election a which
the same shall be submitted to them
Section 1 Of Article XIV. relating to
amendments Of the constitution, reads in
part as follows: and it shall appear in a
manner to. be provided by law that ma
jority Of ALL the electors voting at said
election shall have voted for and ratified
such alterations. or amendments
The distinction is plain and conclu-
sive. TO annul the gross earnings law it
requires a majority Of the electors TO
change the constitution it requires a ma
jority of all the electors Section 1 of
Article XIV. Of the old constitution left
the word ALI out, and simply provided
for majority Of the electors voting at
said election 1t was contended by some
that this meant majority of all the
voters voting at an election, but the SUI
preme court has construed this to mean
a majority Of those voting upon the CUES
ton itself, and not a majority of all
that might have cast their votes at the
election upon other questions that might
have been submitted at the same election.
BY reading the supreme court decisions
SUCH as Taylor VS.. Taylor, 10 Mimi. LOT,
and Dayton VS.. City of st. Paul % MINI
4O0. and a number Of other decisions
8 bearing on the subject. you will see there
Is. no doubt that the four per cent gross
earnings law has been approved by con-
stltutional majority. -. ..;~
'HOwever. the suggestions that this la
III the light of recent revelations as to 9th
err earnings and incomes of railroad CON,
panies not heretofore reached under the
old law, should be further amended Ger
1alhly approve. and I have no doubt that
the incoming legislature will speedilv
solve this problem"
Douglas Doesn't Think So
Attorney General Douglas, seen this aft.
ernoon by T h e Journal, said:
II am very sorry, but do not believe
there is merit in Mr.. Jacobson's conten.
tlon The language of the constitution
demands "a majority Of the electors Votine
at the election and I believe that means
all the voters. The decisions of the SUI
preme court on Article IA hinged on the
clause which prior to 1898 read If it shall
appear. etc. that majority Of electors
present and voting shall have ratified sucl
alterations and amendments 1t was held
and the court agreed, that the omission OF
the words at the election left the clause
to mean that only majority of those yot
ing on the proposition was required The
new provision adopted in 1898 required 9
majority of all the voters voting at the
election. The only difference between
this and the gross earnings provision ir
Article is the word ALL do not believe
that means anything, or that it would ado
anything to the clause in question: I