The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-04-26
EXPECT REJECTION
OF PROPOSED
CHANCES
Constitution Has Been Safe
From Thinkers Since Adop-
ton of Majority Rule
Amendment in 1898-Pol-
iticians Foresee Defeat for
Three Propositions to Be
Submitted Next Year.

Two proposed amendments of the
constitution and a constitutional prop
osition will, as results of the legislative
session of 1903, be submitted to the
voters for ratification or rejection at
the next general election.
The first amendment is that provid-
ing for the investment of the perma-
nent school and university fund in mu-
nicipal and school bonds which was
submitted and lost at the last general
election. The second proposed amend
ment is that provided by the Lay
bourne bill which contemplateS aboli-
ton in part at least of the grand jury
system.
The constitutional proposition is that
providing for the increase of the rail-
roads gross earnings tax from per
cent to per cent. This proposition
was also submitted at the last general
election and failed of ratification.
The ratification of either the propOs-
ed amendments or the constitutional
provision for increase of the gross
earnings tax is rather more doubtful
than problematical, viewed in the IigTt
OF the experience of proposed amend
ments and propositions submitted since
the general election of 1898. Ratifca-
ton implies the affirmative vote of a
majority of all the electors voting at
the next election.
Changed in 1893.
Prior to 1893 proposed constitutional
amendments could be ratified and
adopted by a majority of those votes
cast directly on the proposition. This
made it possible for the constitution to
be changed by majority vote and as
result the Minnesota constitution was
and is a patch work
At the session of 1897 four amend
mentS were proposed. All were adopt
ed, in every instance by a minority
vote, but the adoption of the amend
ment to section One, article Fourteen
put at an end the minority rule and
IN all probability made constitutional
amendment, except by means of a con-
sututional convention, improbable, if
not impossible.
The other amendments submitted in
1898 were to section Eight of article
Seven, authorizing limited franchise for
women; to section Thirty-six of arti-
Gle Four, authorizing cities and villages
TO frame home rule charters and CLASH
Tying cities for general legislation. The
fourth amendment was to article TX.
establishing a state road and bridge
fund and authorizing the legislature
to levy One-twentieth mill tax.
The comparative vote on these
amendments illustrates how it was pos
sible for minority, having a legisla-
tive majority with it. to change the or
ganic law at will The whole vote for
presidential electors was 342, 1852.
The Minority Ruled.
The amendment establishing the ma
Jority rule was ratified by a vote of
69,760, or approximately one-fifth of
the vote cast at the election. The
amendment authorizing limited fran
chise received 71,704. The home rule
charter amendment received 6S,T54 or
almost exactly one-fifth of the whole
vote. The road and bridge fund and
state highway commission amendment
received 7O,O43 votes. The highest num-
Der of votes cast for and against either
of the amendments was 1853 or a
little more than one-third of the vote.
The legislature of 1899 failed to in
VolVe itself in constitutional PROPOSE
tons. The legislature of 1901 propos-
ed an amendment to section Sixteen of
article Nine, relative to the road and
bridge fund and authorizing a one
tenth mill tax, and an amendment to
section Six of article Eight permitting
the investment of the permanent school
and university funds in municipal
bonds. 1t also proposed to increase
the railroad gross earnings tax from
per cent to 4 per cent which by con-
sututional provision cannot be done
without the consent of the people.
The same legislature in extra session
in the spring of 1902 proposed amend
ments to sections One, Two and Three
of article Nine, eovering the subject
of taxation. Under the majority rule
all these amendments and propositions
submitted to the general election of
1902 were lost by virtue of the majority
rule injected into the constitution by
minority in 1898.
Lost by Increased Vote.
A significant feature of the defeat of
the constitutional propositions in 1902
is that While the whole vote of 1902
was third less than the vote of 1898
the propositions Severally received an
a1lrmatlVe vote from one-third to one
half greater than that by which the
amendments Of 1898 were adopted
The whole vote of 1902 was 27O,SS2
BY the majority rule an affirmative
vote of 135, 446 was necessary for the
rau1lcatlon of either of the four propo-
s1tions submitted. The gross earnings
tax proposition received the largest at
hrmative vote recorded for a constitu-
tlonal proposition in Minnesota. The
whole vote was 130,522, or in round
numbers 5000 short of ratification. The
proposed amendments received affirrna-
tive votes ranging from ia 900 to 1874
600.
With presidential campaign in 1904
conservative estimate will not place
the total vote short of 5000. This
implies that the constitutional PROPOSE
ton and amendments proposed by the
legislature that has just adjourned Will
require for ratification an affirmative
vote of at least 1S7,50O. This in turn
implies that the whole vote on either
OF the several propositions must exceed
ZOO0OO, as at the last election the mega
tive vote on the general propositions
exceeded in each instance 10000 That
nearly 100000 voters will vote for either
of the propositions to be submitted is
considered more than doubtful by the
most enthusiastic political prophets.
SkepticaI of Separate Ballot,
With the hope of securing an in.