The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1912-10-13


win not be allowed to vote on the
amendment.
kTRAMMELL FIRM IN OPINION.
Mr.. Trammell seems firmly con-
WINGED that the law supports his
opinion to the secretary of state, ad
vising that the amendment should be
submitted and in support of his
fight in the courts he earnestly con-
tends that when the proposed amend
ment was agreed to by both the house
and the senate by more than three
fifths OF the members of each house
and spread upon the journals with
the yea and nay vote as appears up
on the journals, that all requirements
Of the constitution applying to the
legislature proposing and agreeing to
an amendment were complete and
final That the amendment then
passed into the possession of the vot-
ers. and that although the senate
thereafter attempted to recall 1t from
the pubic, it had no authority to do
That any attempted action by the
senate thereafter was without au-
thortty and of no effect. He saws
the courts have uniformly held that
the provisions of the constitution for
amending 1t and only those provis-
Ions govern in proposing and agree
Ing to constitutional amendment.
That the courts hold that when ac-
ton Is taken under such provisions.
the action is complete within itself
and that the provisions of the con-
Butuffon and the law applying to orr
binary legislative matters does not
apply to constitutions making. The
courts hold that the legislature in
proposing an amendment is not per-
forming legislative function and not
governed by legislative procedure.
ALL PROVISIONS FULFILLED.
Every provision of the constitution
having been fulfilled and both houses
having by three-fif, $ votes agreed
to the. proposed amendment Mr..
Trammen says the motion to recon
slider was without authority. The
amendment had previously by the ac
ton OF both houses passed into the
possession Of the public and the SEN
ate could no longer take any legal
action thereon. Even II the senate
could have legally considered a mo-
tion TO reconsider the alleged motion
which was made never received the
necessary vote to adopt the motion.
Upon the alleged motion the journals
show vote OF 16 to IS. The sen
ate was attempting to reconsider
with a majority vote a matter which
had in accordance with the constitu-
ton been agreed to by a three fifths
vote. The law and the decisions Of
the courts hold that a three fifths
vote can only be undone or reconsid-
cred its former action when it by
more than a three fifths vote agreed
to the proposed amendment and no.
titled the house that 1t had done so
Mr.. Trammell contends that the SEN
ate could not recall its action and
the proposed amendment from the
public but if it could the senate
never by proper vote revoked or
reconsidered its former action.
Mr.. Trammell is fighting to allow
the voters to express their will at
the polls, contending that the courts
very largely have adopted the policy
OF giving more weight to the express
sion OF the voters than to any other
point connected with the adoption OF
an amendment: that they have large
lyI FOLLOWED and placed that construc-
tion upon the various proceedings
that would sustain the popular will.
The opposition bringing the suit now
Instead of after the election seeks to
exclude the expression of the voters
frpm the consideration.