The Sentinel=record., 1915-03-23

Little Rock, March 32--Amend- meut No. l4, known as the Bonj Amendment, voted on by the voters or Arkansas at the last general cleo tion, was dec Jared invalid by the Su- ,seme Court, in decision handed down today. The Supreme Court held the amendment to have been adopted, would have had to receive d majority of the largest vote cast. The amendment did not receive a major ity of the largest vote cast, although Fit did receive a majority of the votes cast for and against it.
 Validity of the proposed constitu- tional amendment was attacked ill two cases filed against Mayor Charles E. Taylor of Little Rock and allegations were set forth that it had not been legally adopted for two req sons. That it did not rec i've ma jority of the largest vote cast and that it was not properly advertis q.
 The vote for governor in the elec- ton last fall totalled 135.5l7. Under the Supreme Courts ruling, the pro- posed amendment would have 10 have received GI7a9 votes The measure received 5f7S2 yoatss The total vote on the proposed amendment Was s5.223. Many voters did not cast their ballots eitaer for or against the proposed amendment
 The court ovsrru ed the conteu- ton that notices of submission of the proposed amendment were nsuffi- cient following that ruling with the finding that fl did not receive enough votes The Supreme Court was una, nimous in the decision
 In ruling on the case, the Supreme Courts decision says
 Tt would be doing d violence r3 the designs of the f.amers of the amendment to attribute 10 them the intention to require a less number ol votes 10 adopt an amendment pro posed by the people through the power of the Initiative than one sub mittsd by the General Assembly.
 Tt is earnestly insisted that this yioV of the matter leaves Amend mcut No lo without any s.ecfca- tion at all as to the number of votes necessary to enact or adopt an iui- tiatcd bill That this is true, but it does not follow that that feature of the amendment in this kind of en- ablmg legislation would fail because there was no such SD cification This is a government of maiorities og rather of plurality of the votes cast on any given question, unless tlere i. some contrary specifications n the organic law. and when the fram- CTS of the amendment provided for the exercise of the initiative and the submission of laws to the people through that agency. that necessarily meant that the majority of those voting on any particular question should control That however does not apply 10 the adoption of amend mcuts to the constitution, for the ob- yious reason that the constitution it. salf provides another rule, and the f.amers of this amendment are pre- sumed to have omitted any other provision in recognition of the forco pl that provision
 we are of tho opinion, therefore, that the majority of all votes cast at the election, as shown by the returns. is necessary to adopt proposed amendment to the constitution int tiated by the people, and that in tais
 instance the proposed amendment has not received such majority. and that therefore it is not legal y adopted The declaration of the speaker of the House of Representatives was therefore based on a misconception of the law and has no binding force when We come to consider as a judi cial question the matter of the adop. tion of the amendments.
 Many Arkansas cities have already ordered elections to be held to vote on issues of bonds for needed i'm provements. and these elections are now rendered unnecessary The election Iroposed by the Little Rock City Council, April H. to vote on an issue of bonds for a City Hospital. is also set aside
 Much interest has been manifested in Areenta in connection with the outcome Of the Amendment No 1t