The Elbert County tribune., 1912-09-27
SUPREME COURT REvERsEs RID
DIE IN INITIATIVE AND REF
ERENpuM CASE.
GOES TO VOTERS NOV. 5
OPINION WRITTEN BY CHIEF JUS
TIcE CAMPBELL, ALL THE
JUDGES coNcuRRINe.


re-advertise and re-submit the initia-
tive and referendum to a vote of the
people. virtually killing the act. was re-
versed by the Supreme Court in an
opinion handed down Monday. The
cause was ordered rcmnnded and
Judge Riddle commanded to dismiss
the petition Of w. H. Tate of Pueblo,
brought by his attorney. N. Walter
Dixon. Dixon has three days to file
O motion for rehearing
Justice Campbell wrote the opinion,
his six associates concurring
The Western Newspaper Union had
made extensive advance preparations
In order to handle the initiative and
referred laws for the newspapers Of
the state in case the Riddle decision
was reversed, and had the amend
ments all in type and several extra
carloads of paper provided when the
supreme Court rendered its decision.
The decision in full follows:
AT special session of the General
Assembly, convened in August, 1910,
by proclamation of the governor, there
was proposed, as an amendment to our
constitution. to be submitted to the
people at the general election in No
vember of that year. for their approval
or rejection. what is generally known
AS the Initiative and Referendum law.
A constitutional majority OF the people
approved it.
Thereafter. large number of
amendments to the constitution, pro-
posed under authority of this new Sec
tion, were filed in the office of the
secretary of state for submission to
the people at the general election to
be held in November. 1912
| The relator, Tate, conceiving that
the amendment in question was not a
part of our organic law, filed his pc
tition in the District Court of the Sec
ond Judicial District, setting forth
therein in what its invalidity consist
ed and praying for writ of mandamus
to compel the secretary of state to
\ publish and submit, or re-submit, the
same to the qualified voters at the
next general election. to be held in No
vember. 1912. and to hold for naught
and ignore any and all petitions which
have been filed in his office in ac-
cordance with its provisions. that con-
tanned proposals for constitutional
amendments and laws Hereunder. The
District Court granted the prayer of
The petition and issued it's writ accord
ingly; to review which this writ of err
ror has been sued out by the secretary
Of state.
One Defect Is Noted.
The only defect which the petition
points out in connection with the sub
mission of the proposed amendment
was the conceded failure upon the part
Of the secretary of state to cause the
same to be published in the session
laws of the special legislative session
| previous to the general election of
1910, at which the vote upon 1t was
taken.
Section of Article XIX of the con-
stitution, which provides how amend
ments thereto shall be proposed and
submitted, is controlling of the ques-
tion. That part of the section which
| is pertinent here reads: y 'the
| proposed amendment or amendments
shall be published with the laws OF
| that session of the General Assembly,
and the secretary of state shall also
cause the said amendment or amend
ments to be published in full in not
more than one newspaper of general
circulation in each county for four sue
cessive weeks previous to the next
general election for members of the
| General Assembly"
| Relates the Contention.
The contention of relator, briefly
stated, is that the publishing of pro-
| posed amendments in the session laws
for four successive weeks previous to
the next general election is an essen
tial condition precedent to the validity
| of their submission; that they may be
proposed only at a regular. and not at
| a special. session, of the General AS
sembly; but, If at a special session,
that must be done at such time as
that publication in the session laws
can be made as the foregoing language
prescribes.
BY Section OF Article ~ of our
constitution, "the governor may, on ex-
traordinary occasions, convene the
general assembly, by proclamation
stating therein the purpose for which
| 1t Is to assemble"
There is no express provision In
| this section, or elsewhere in the con-
stitution, which prohibits the COVER
nor from including in his proclamation
| conveninG 4 special session of the
General Assembly proposals for
amendments to the constitution.
1t is claimed, however. that the In
hibition arises, by implication, from
the language above quoted, which re-
| quires that proposed amendments be
published In the session laws. But 1t
is obvious that II this requirement is
mandatory and applicable to insertion
in the session laws. the particular OBJ
| lection here urged is untenable, for
the General Assembly may be con-
vened in special session a sufficient
length OF time in advance OF the gen
eral election to permit compliance
with publication in the session laws.
The objection goes. IL at all, only to
amendments passed at SO late a date
that the requirement cannot be met.
And SO the question really is whether