The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1909-10-01

of the election and declaring the results
and acts.
1t has always been the law that in
constructing a section of the constitution
that the journals of the constitutional
convention that created the constitution
could be looked to to aid the construction
On page ass of the journals of the con-
stitutional convention of Alabama for 1901
we find a report of the committee that
reported the section in question and
recommended its passage and in said re-
port we find the following in reference
to what is now section 2S4 of our consti-
tuition. 1t was there designated as sec
ton /. qoute the language:
Section l has been rewritten SO as to
require the assent of three-fifths of all
the members elected to each house of the
general assembly to proposed amend
ments before the same can be submitted
to the people The committee was aware
that doubt existed as TO whether the
language of This article in the constitu-
ton required two-thirds of all the mem
bers elected to each house, or only tw6
thirds of a quorum of each house, and
that it was susceptible of the latter con-
struction. The committee deemed it
best that more than a majority of all
the members elected TO each house should
approve the amendments D6lOT0 they
should be submitted, and thought it adj
visable to express the requirement in
language that cannot be misunderstood.
The above is submitted for what 1t is
worth.
The constitution of the state of Cali
fornia in 1885 provided as follows:
ANY amendment or amendments to
this constitution may be proposed in the
senate or assembly and if tNo-thirds of
all the members elected to each of the
two houses shall vote in favor thereof,
such proposed amendment or amend
ments shall be entered in their journals,
with the yeas and nays taken thereon;
and it shall be the duty of the legisla-
ture to submit such proposed amendment
or amendments to the people in such
manner and at such time, and after such
publication as may be deemed expedi-
emit"
Section 2S7 of our constitution requires
that the vote In proposing the amend
ment shall be taken by the yeas and nays
and entered on the journal just as in the
California constitution so there is no diff
ference between the California constitu-
ton and our constitution.
In the case of Hatch against Stoneman
reported in &c Cal. page $50, and 6 Pac
Rep. page 734 in constituting this section
the supreme court of California used the
following language:
ut will be remarked that the power to
propose an amendment to the constitu-
ton is vested in the two houses-senate
and assembly-and If two-thirds of all the
members elected to each OF the two
houses vote in favor thereof, it shall be
the duty of the legislature to submit
such proposed amendment or amend
ments to the people to be voted thereon.
The proposal of the amendment or
amendments is not by the legislature. as
such, in the ordinary enactment of law.
and the proposal of the governor has
nothing to do. The act is that of two
thirds of each branch of the legislature.
But the matter OF submitting the pro-
posed amendment or amendments to the
vote of the people is quite different. That
is to be done by the legislature, by a law
to that effect, and in the enactment of a
law the governor Is part of the law
making power"
At another place in the same opinion
the court says:
"At the expense of repetition we again
say that the two houses Of the legisla-
ture proposed the amendment, but the
time when such proposed amendment Is
to be submitted to the people Is fixed
by an act of the legislature and such
act does not require the concurrence
of two-thirds of each branch of that
body, but does require the approval of
the governor, or the passage in the con-
stitutional manner, after his disapproval
and veto of the bill. to make It q law
1t will be seen by the foregoing and
by reading section 2S4 of our constitution
that the proposing of an amendment is
an entirely different thing to the order
ing Of the election to submit it to the
people. 1t takes only the two houses to
propose the amendment and that has to
be done by three-fifths vote. while to call
the election or to submit such amend
ment to the people requires the action
of both houses and the governor. but re-
qufres only majority of each house
This is a material distinction for the
reason that when the proposed amend
ments and the calling Of the election
were in one bill 1t is impossible to tell
what caused each member of the two
houses to vote as he did; whether his
vote was Influenced by that part of the
bill which proposed the amendments or
that part fixing the time for the election.
As matter of history we are reasona-
bly, certain that at least one man would
have voted differently to what he did
vote II he could have voted separately:
and Tor aught that can be told from the