Omaha daily bee., 1907-02-23

COMMISSION AMENDMENT VALID.
The state supreme court has rem
dered its decision In the test case
brought to determine the validity OF
the constitutional amendment ratified
at the last election creating an cleo
tive state railway commission and Of
the titles of the railway commissioners
elected at the same time. The court
holds that the commission amendment
has been properly adopted and is now
and has been from the day Of election
a part of the constitution OF Nebraska.
II holds further that the people have
right to choose the officers to serve
in the positions thus created at the
same time that they create the posi-
lions, and that the commissioners,
elected according to the returns OF the
vote cast last November. being other
wise duly qualified, are in fact entitled
to hold under the constitution as thus
amended.
The reasoning by which the court
arrives at its conclusion upholding the
amendment is logical and convincing.
On the point of irregularity OF pub
LEGATION the court reiterates its post
ton to which The Bee called attention
ut the time that the three calendar
months must be counted back from
election day and not to the first of the,
third month preceding the month in
which the election is held. But 1t
goes even further than that by deolar-
ing that minor Irregularities in publ
cation, where substantial compliance
with the spirit of the constitutional
provision is had. will not be. allowed
to defeat the expressed will of the peo-
pie. Otherwise, a unanimous express
sion by voters fully appraised of the
change proposed might be overturned
by wilful or accidental failure 10 COM
ply literally with the requirement of
publication for three calendar months
in at least one newspaper In each Of
the ninety counties in Nebraska.
On the other disputed questions as
to the method of voting and of count
ing the vote the decision is equally
straight out. The legislature is held
to be fully empowered to prescribe
how the ballot shall be made up and
In what manner 1t shall be marked
and how 1t Ehall be counted, providing
the constitutional requirement that
each voter have an opportunity to vote
for or against each amendment sub
mitted shall not be infringed. No one
contends that any voter who wished
to register his ballot against the adop-
ton OF the amendment was prevented
from doing so, nor that any votes we're
counted for 1t that we're not cast in
manner to indicate that the voter
wished to be recorded afirmatively.
The overwhelming consideration in
the adoption OF constitutional amend
ments, as in the election of candidates
for Office. must be the intent of the
people. In this case the amendment
was carried with practically no oppo-
sition. the only question being whether
the people had. expressed themselves
in a manner conforming to their own
constitution so as to be effective. It
was not a question of UNFOLDING an
amendment popularity endorsed in ig-
norance of its scope and purpose nor
of counting in. an amendment carried
or lost by the skin of its teeth, but OF
blocking the uhquestioned desire of
the people to have the commission
amendment engrafted upon their con-
stitution. Under these conditions the
court has rightly taken the broad
view. and although setting a precedent
requiring care to prevent abuse Of 1t
in the future. the decision will stand
out pre-eminently as going to the jus
tice and merit of the case.