Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1915-04-16
L|NDE SAYS
AMENDMENT 1 ! | ! \
IS VALID
ATTORNEY GENERAL ADv1s-
Es GOVERNOR THAT THE
AMENDMENT Is IN ALL RE-
sPEcTs CONSTITUTIONAL.
ANSWERS ALL ARGUMENTS
Three Main Contentious Are TAX
en- Up and Fully Discussed
in Opinion.

in Opinion.
That the amendment to the con.
stitution of the state of North Dakota
providing for the initiative and refer.
endum has been legally made a part
of the constitution and is in all re.
spects valid, and that all rumors re-
lating to the alleged unconstitutional.
ity of that amendment are baseless
is the opinion of Attorney General
Henry j. Linde, in recent letter ad.
dressed to the governor.
The opinion of the attorney gen
eral with regard to the constitutions
ality of the initiative and referend.
um is printed in full, as follows:
Hon. L. B. Hanna, Governor,
Bismarck, n. D.
Dear Sir:
Pursuant to your request for an
opinion with respect to the validity of
the initiative and referendum amend.
ment to our constitution, | beg to ad'
wise you that l have made some in
vestigation Of the authorities relating
to this matter, AS understand it,
the following three questions have
have been suggested which might af.
feet the validity of this amendment:
/. Would the failure to enter the
concurrent resolution providing for
the initiative and referendum in full
or at length upon the journal Of the
house and senate make such constitu'
tional amendment invalid?
2. Would the fact that the initia'
tive and referendum provision was
submitted as one proposition at the
general election IN 1914 in place OF
submitting each separately as two
propositions affect Its validity?
3. Was there such a discrepancy In
the wording and language thereof as
the same was passed by the 1911 and
1919 Legislative Assemblies as would
make the enactment subject to at
tack
First Proposition. r.
TIL, journal of the house and senate
during the 1911 and 1913 legislative
assemblies discloses that, in the pas
sage of the so-called initiative and
referendum concurrent resolution, the
number Of the resolution and its title
only were recorded Section 2O2 OF
our constitution provides among 9th
er things that "such proposed amend
ment should be entered on the jour
nal of the house with the yeas and
nays taken thereon. This same ques
ton has been raised in number OF
states and in my opinion by far the
greater weight of authority in con
STRUNG similar sections of the con
stitution of other states holds that
the words, entered on the journal,
does not mean center in full'' or ZEN
ter at large" or "enter at length" OF
"copy," but that the constitutional re-
ouirement is full met if such consti
tutional amendment is recorded in the
journals Of the house by an identify
ing reference.
Prohibitory Amendment Cases, "a
Kans. 700.
Oakland Paving Co. VS.. Tompkins
u Cal. 5,
In re Senate File, Al N. w. 9S1
,(Neb.).
Forman VS.. Hagan, u AT. Md.
State, ex rel, Adams, ct al, VS.. Her
ried, ct al, 10 s. D. '109; u N. w. SO
Cudihee VS.. Phelps, 76 Wash. 579;
1877 Pac. 1O4O.
West VS.. State, SO sn. Rep. AZ
(Fla.).
Tabor VS.. Walla Walla, II Wash
579: 1877 Pac. 1040.
Furthermore, in this state it seems
to have been clearly the intention Of
the trainers of our constitution not tc
require such resolutions to be copied
in full in the journal for the reason
that in the constitutional convention
an amendment was proposed by Mr.
williams to section 2O2 of the consti
tuition which provided that "such pro
ncsed amendment, together with the
yeas and nays of each house thereon
shall be entered in full on their re
spective journals, but upon vote
this amendment was defeated and sec
tion POP of our constitution finally
adopted without containing the words
ssin full"' after the word "enter."
See Debates Constitutional Conven
tion. pages 502 and 624.
The Second Proposition.
Referring to tho second proposition,
in the light fthe authorities reIat
ing thereto, it is my opinion that oul
constitution would not require that
the initiative be submitted as one
proposition as DISTINGUISHED from the
referendum. The weight of authority
in nv opinion, holds that the initia
tive and referendum are so closely
associated chat they. in fact, embrace
lint one amendment and one subject
Peonle vs Sours. 81 Col 1863: "A
Pac. 1877; 81O2 Am. St. Rep. "a.
State. ex rel. Adams vs.. Herrled, e'
al, 10 s. D. 109: u N. w. 49, -,
WormaI VS.. Hagan, 27 At. '6lt
CMd.).
CONTINUED on Page Two.)