The diamond drill. (Crystal Falls, Iron County, Mich.) 1887-1996, 1919-10-11

The supreme court OF Michigan Is
sued an order during the week requir
ing Secretary OF State Vaughan TO
show cause why he should not file and
canvass the petition OF the vets OF
Detroit containing 10000 names and
asking for the submission OF the
amendment to the Federal constitu-
ton TO the people
The legislature ratified the amend
ment last winter. A petition referring
the action to the people was iied
soon afterwards in accordance to the
referendum provisions OF our state
laws. Sec. Vaughan. on advice OF At
torney General Groesbeck, refused TO
, file the petition.
Attorney General Groesbeck, in his
opinion, took the view that the feder-
al constitution fixed one OF two meth
DDS by which that organized law may
be amended, one of which is by legis-
latiye ratification OF congressional
resolution, setting forth the proposed
amendment as in this case He
claimed that not only was such ac-
ton OF the legislature final. the fed
eral constitution having fixed the
method OF its own amendment, which
could not be modified by state, but
that Michigan's constitution gave the
right OF referendum only to acts of
the legislature and did not include
resolutions or other proceedings OF
the state legislature.
The main hope of the vets rests
on decision of the United States
supreme court. and is simmered down
to the meaning of the word "legis-
lature." In that decision, the feder-
the Legislative body" and the "legis-
lative power" and held that the term
Legislature" as used in the federal
constitution relative to the case in
issue, meant legislative power, the
synonym of which is the people.
This federal decision is in an
Ohio case. where the state legislature
had passed law redistricting the
state for representa- In congress.
The law was referred to the people
and defeated. Then the plaintiff in
stituted suit to compel the election
of senator's and representative under
the law. maintaining that under the
federal constitution the people OF
Ohio had no right TO vote on the law
passed by the legislature as provided
by the federal constitution.
In this case. known as Davis VS..
Hildebrand, the federal court held
that 1t was not the intention OF the |
federal constitution to abridge the |
poHer OF a state.
Chief Justice White said "legisla-
ture" meant Legislative power" which |
is vested in the people. and the redis-
tricting law In question could be |
properly referred TO vote OF the |
electors. This same principle, con-
tend the vets, in this Michigan case I
is applicable, and the secretary OF |
state should canvass and submit the |
matter TO the people.
Recent action OF the supreme court |
of the state of Washington in its case,
identical with the one in Michigan,
also is cited by the petitioners. On
January 10 the legislature OF that |
state ratified the national prohibition
and the court has issued |
a writ OF mandamus TO compel the |
secretary of state TO submit the petit
ton for referendum to the voters.
The Ohio case of a few days ago
is the last one in point II the princi-
pie applies to Michigan. In that case
the secretary OF state did accept and
file the petition for referendum on
the ratification OF national prohibit
ton. and suit was Instituted to enjoin
him from proceeding to an election
While the Ohio constitution express