Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-04-04

It the legislature desires, II
may direct that such amendments
shall be submitted at q special cleo
ton. But the second subdivision ex-
pressly provides that amendments
proposed hereunder shall be submit
ted at a general election. The lesis-
lature is given unrestricted power to
prescribe the notice to be given pre-
vious to an election at which an
amendment proposed under the first
subdivision is submitted to the cleo
tors for ratification or rejection.---(as
notice.; but 1t is expressly provided
that an amendment proposed under
the second subdivision shall be pub
lished for three months previous to
the general election. at which 1t is
submitted.
At the time the secondasubdivision
Of section 202 was framed, there We're
two prevailing rules in this country
as to the number Of votes required
to ratify a constitutional amendment.
That is. also. true today. Some Of the
votes cast upon the subject, while
others require the votes Of q majority
OF all the electors voting at the cleo
ton at which the amendment IL sub
mitted. Our sister state. Minnesota.
has the latter rule. So has many
other states. (sec. IL c. J. 694.) The
former rule was embodied in the first
Dakota constitution. If the men who
framed, and the legislators who pro-
posed. the second subdivision intend
ed to make the rule announced in the
first subdivision applicable to amend
( ments proposed under the second sub
division, there was no diMeulty in
finding suitable language 70 express
such intent, There was NO occasion
ito search for OF invent a phrase. The
phrase clearly expressing such intent
was right before their eyes, Not only
so. but the legislators who proposed
subdivision 2, section 202, also, pro-
posed the constitutional amendment
providing for the initiative and refer
e3dum of statutes. tSee Chap, %,
Laws 1911; Chap. 10l. Laws 1879
And in this latter amendment 1t was
terms that statutes submitted to the
people for ratification or rejection
pursuant to initiative and referendum
petitions shall require the approval
OF only a majority Of the votes cast
upon the particular subject. II the
men who framed and proposed the
second subdivision Of section 202,
amendment proposed hereunder
should require only "a majority Of all
legal votes cast thereon" why did
they not say so? They said so in the
relative TO- the initiative and
referendum OF statutes. 1t had al
ready been said in the first suhdivi-
sion of section 202. That rule was
satisfactory as to amendments pro-
posed under that subdivision. No
as to amendments proposed under the
second subdivision it was specifically
stated that such amendments must
receive a majority of all the legal
votes cast at such general election"
This phrase was used three differ,
ent times. The words We're not used
idly. There was a reason for their use
There was, also a reason for the re,
peated use<of the identical phrasaolo'
gy. A constitutional provision is thu
most deliberate and solemn -of writ
citizen. 1t implies a degree Of DELHI
Grafton and a carefulness of expires
sion proportional to the importance
Of the transaction, and the words ar
presumed to have been used with tn
greatest possible discrimination
1Peo. VS.. N. Y. Cont. r.. ~ N. T.
~4s5-4s7). TT is not to be suppose'
that any words Gin a consultations
provision) have been employed with
| out occasion. or without intent tha
they should have effect a. part Of tn
law" tCooley's CenSt. Linn. 3D.
But the majority members say tina
the question involved here has beel
settled by the former decisions Of thi
court, and that We ought to adhere t
such decisiens. The cases relied upoi
are: State VS.. Barnes, 5. N. D. 80
: state vs.. Langlie, s N. q. 7694. an
State q. Blaisdeli, IS N. D. 81. lie
us examine these decisions and De
what basis there Is for the cententio
meaning Of the phrase involved i
this controversy.
State w. Barnes involved an cleo
ton for the approval or rejection q
tho proposed constitution OF this statl
The election was pyovided for In tn
: enabling act" under which the stat
. OF North Dakota, SoNth Dakota, Mont
ana and Washington. were adraitte
posed by the different constitutions
conventions should be submitted t
the psople 81 the proposed states 10
ratification cr rejection at an electip
to be held in each Of the propose
states on thu hrst Tuesday In October
. 1889. The; esction further provided
~ the electIon provided for in thi
j section the quali6ed voters OF sal
proposed states shall vote directly 70
and for or against any articles o
proposttiens separately submitted.
and II 4 majority Of the legs
a votaS cast shall, be for the ~constitu
ton the goveEnOr shall certify til
result to the president, Of the Unite
States, itoosther with q statement Q
the votes eaAt thereon ana upon rep