Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1905-03-31
TO VOTE ON AMENDMENT

three dissenting In many oil the essential
facts Of the proceedings, an opinion was
handed down on Thursday Of last week by
the Court Of Appeals In the msndamus pro.
ceedings against Governor Warfleld TO com
pei him TO proclaim the elective franchise
amendment.
The opinion, 10 twenty-five typewriter
pages, af1rms the decision Of the lower court
and instructs Governor Warfeld 70 pro-
claim the amendment 1t denies that he
had the right to either veto the bill or cause
Its passage by falling TO return it TO the Leg
stature within six days Of its presentment.
Three judges dissented as TO the wording
in which the matter should be placed before
the voters, they placing q construction on
the wording which would appear that there
had been some effort made 10 have the bill
imperative at any stage.
The court cites at great length opinions
on proceedings Instituted on lines similar to
the present contention, which were handed
down in Pennsylvania and Louisiana, makes
use of the language Of article IA OF the Mary.
land Constitution, which states that pro-
posal OF an amendment by the General As.
sembly in the form Of a bill shall have its
passage by three.fifths Of all the members
elected TO each house, the entry OF the pro-
posed amendment on the journal, the publi-
cation BY order of the Governor for at least
three months before the next general eec-
ton, vote OF the people, and II a majority
of the voters are favorable to It's adoption, q
proclamation by the Governor declaring the
amendment 70 be adopted and henceforth
the amendment shall be part Of the Constl.
tuition.
The court holds that there Is not a word
or syllable to be found in any Of the provls
ions even suggesting that the Governor is
entitled to participate in any way in formu.
lating and proposing amendments TO the
Constitution.
Coming TO the second section Of the bill
the opinion uses the following language:
"The second section OF the franchise
amendment bill Is in these words: And be
it further enacted, That the foregoing Sec
ton hereby proposed as an amendment to
the Constitution Of the State shall be at the
next general election for members of the
General Assembly TO be held In this State,
submitted to the legal and qualified voters
thereof for their adoption or rejection, In
pursuance Of the directions contained in Ar
ticle XIV. OF the Constitution, and at said
election the vote on said proposed amend.
ment shall be by ballot, and upon each bal
lot there shall be written or printed the
words For the Constitutional Amendment
or Against the Constitutional Amendment
as the voters shall elect, and Immediately
after said election due return shall be made
to the Governor Of the vote on the said pro.
posed amendment as directed by said arti
Gle of the Constitution"
"Now II cannot be pretended continues
the court, shat the clause directing the
amendment 10 be submitted TO the legal and
qualified voters Of the State at the next gen.
eral election for the General Assembly is
distinctively and essentially legislative pro.
vision, requiring the Governors approval,
because 1t is precisely what article IA pre-.
scribes shall be done, and II the clause had
been entirely omitted from the section the
constitutional mandate would have been
operative, as 1t still is effective in this par
ticular. Nor is the requirement that the
vote on the proposed amendment shall be
by ballot legislative enactment, because
the Constitution itself, in section l, article /,
declares that all elections shall be by ballot
"The direction that Immediately after the
election due returns shall be made 10 the
Governor is simply repetition Of the terms
OF Article XIV, under which identically the
same thing would have been done If the sec
ton had been altogether silent on the sub.
ject. The phrase as the voter shall elect
refers not to the remote, but to the immedi.
ate antecedents, not TO the written or print
ed but to the for or against because the
voter has nothing to do with making the
ballot, and, therefore, 1t is impossible for hin
70 elect whether words shall be written OF
printed.
"Hence Of necessity the phrase must NEAR
precisely that which Is implied and included
In the equally comprehensive provisions o
the law unless 1t is assumed that the Gen
eral Assembly purposely intended to mis-
lead and confuse the voter by inserting 9
clause In conflict with the then existing
general law OF that the General Assembly
obviously designed TO repeal the then exist
ing general law in this particular and Il
substitute different provision in its stead
No middle or intermediate attitude exists
Either one or the other or neither of the two
alternatives just indicated must be accepted
There was obviously no intention to repea
the general law, because the General AS
sembly 10 passing the good roads amendmen
concurrently with the franchise amend men
expressly invoked aud reaffirmed the gen
eral law, and 1t cannot with propriety b,
said that as to one amendment the genera
law was to govern whilst as to the other
totally different system was to prevail.
"Neither alternative can therefore be in
voked. As the voters shall elect they viii
vote for or against the amendment. This Il
what the phrase means and that ls exsctl,
In accordance With what the code prescribes
The court discusses this phase OF the ques
ton at great length and states positively
that the words for or against the amend
ment shall be printed and the voter mus
not be expected to write them"
The court holds that whether or not the
Governor signed the bills the people shall be
given an opportunity of voting on the pro.
posed amendment. In summing up thelr
opinion the court says;
THE conclusions we have reached are
first, that proposal TO amend the Const.
tuition pure and simple does not need the
approval of the Governor, and that he has
no authority to veto II. To this we all
agree.
secondly, the majority Of Us hold that
there lie nothing In the second section Of the
-