The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-02-16

1ect and purpose and oll else included
therein is incident thereto and reason
ABLY necessary TO effect tho object and
purpose contemplated. It is not inlmical
TO the charge of containing more than
ono amendment
The Constitution of Colorado re-
quircs that If moro than one amend
1nent be submitted at any general cleo
uoh, each of said amendments shall be
voted upon separately" In n case in
that State in l903-PecpIc vs.. Sours-
the facts wero that an amendment I'm
1902 provided % for the consolidation
or the city Of Denver and tho county
OF Arapahoe and for the framing OF
charter by the new municipal cor
poration. and CD for the framing of
nome rule charters by ali cities of
the first and second classes within the
State These two matters wero plain
~ separate and independently; they
could well have been submitted as two
amendments. The Colorado Supreme
Court held. however, that:
An amendment may embrace more
thaH one subject That If an amend
lHSAt embraces more than one subject
said subjects need not be separately
submitted ii they are germano TO tho
general subject OF the amendment, and
If they are SO connected with or de-
pendent upon the general subject TINT
II might not be desirable that one be
adopted and not tho other
The test of constitutionality is,
therefore. in the last analysis: Were
lp oil Ia,
ment submitted in 1910 gcrmanc? Are
they rotated? Have they IA single pur-
pose? Are they connected? Arc they
related to the general purpose OF the
amendment? IL these questions in the
case under discussion can be answered
in the affirmative. the bill before the
Governor IS uncons titutional and void.
There were two amendments sub
mitted to the people in 1910. one,
Amending one numbered section of the
Constitution. gave county trcasurers
and county commissioners OF tho reye-
nue. unlimited tenure; the other. amend
ing two numbered and consecutive SEQ
lions Of the Constitution. gavo q siml-
lar right to city treasurcrs and city
commissioners OF the revenue The
first amendment was for q single pur
pose, the second was also for a single
purpose. In fact. we go SO far as 10
incline to the belief that these two
proposed amendments, which were sep
lrately submitted. could lawfully have,
oeen submitted In n single resolution,
because they have u common object
the abolition of term restrictions upon
treasnrers and commissioners.
Were sections 1i9 and l2O of the !!
Constitution. joined in the amendment
submitted in 1910 germane? Pc
culiarly so. The first section deals !!
with the city commissioner, who col
Gets the revenue; the second with the |
,ity ucj sUrcr who handles 1t: both
sections are peculiarly s4:manc he
cause they have to do with officers
having q common subject of duty. Both |
sections relate solely to city Offices. In
what respect are these sections not
sermane?
This is but one Of the grounds upon
which 1t is respectfully maintained !
that the amendment submitted in 1910 !
vas legally submitted and adopted, ard |
IS. therefore, now part OF the Con-
stitutlon, and consequently cannot be
'esubmitted in 1872. The Times Dis
patch believes that the constitutional
phase OF this question will be calmly
ma dispassionateiy considered by the
Governor and that he will reach such
| decision as becomes a conscientious
chief Magistrate. In time past Cover I
nor Mann has had the good courage to
the majesty of the law. umd
none can doubt that his judgment In
this case will be based on firm will
to uphold tho Constitution of virginia.