Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1919-08-07

rescine such ratification. Such res.
cission was attempted BY Ohio and
New Jersey with reference to the
fourteenth amendment and by New
York with reference to the fifteenth.
but the proclamation Of the Secre-
tary Of State for the United States
was issued announcing the ANAL
adoption OF the amendments a. q
part Of the Federal Constitution. not
withstanding the attempted resets
sion by subsequent Legislatures. The
attempted rescission was ignored.
Watson const. Vol. g. p 1915.
II a subsequent legislature can
not rescind the ratification by q for
mer legislature. 1t would seem that
much less could such ratification be
rescinded BY the subsequent vote of
the people. especially in, view Of the
fact that the people have unreserv-
edly surrendered all authority over
that subject matter. -
II follows from what has been
said. that even II the people Of Maine
by adopting in 1908 the initiative and
referendum amendment to our State
Constitution had attempted to as
sumo or regain the power Of ratifica-
ton Of proposed amendments to
the Federal Constitution. by exercis-
ing a supervisory authority over the
State Legislature in that respect.
such attempt would have been futile.
Their power over amendments had
been completely and unreservedly
lodged with the bodies designated by
Article ". and 50 long as that article
remains unmodiied they have no
power left in themselves either to
propose or to ratify Federal amend
ments. The authority is elsewhere.
But the people by the adoption OF
the initiative and referendum amend
ment did not intent to assume or re-
gain such power.
The purpose and scope Of that
amendment were fully considered
and discussed in the case Of Moul-
ton VS.. Scully, Ill Maine. 42s. 446.
and it was there held that the design
of the initiative and referendum was
to make the law making power Of
the Legislature not final but subject
to the will Of the people and to con-
fer that power in the last analysis
upon the people themselves. And the
Court adds:
This, to, marks the limitation Of
the amendment. It applies only to
legislation. to the making Of laws.
whether 1t be a public act, a private
act or a resolve having the force Of
law. This is shown clearly and con-
clusively by the language Of section
. Of part third Of Article ~ under
the general head Of Legislative pow
err Every bill or resolution having
the force Of law to which the concur
renee Of both houses may be neces-
sary which shall have passed
10th houses, shall be presented to
the Governor. and If he approve
he shall sign it. etc. The referen-
dunn applies and was intended to ap-
ply only to acts or resolves Of this
class. to every bill or resolution hav-
ing the force Of law, that Is to what
are commonly known as legislative
acts and resolves, which are passed
by both branches, are usually signed
by the Governor and are embodied in
the Legislative Acts and Resolves as
printed and published. And the
words No act or joint resolution of
the Legislature etc. before quoted,
in the referendum amendment must
be construed in the light of the con-
text. considering all the sections. and
parts and articles together as mean
ing no act or Joint resolution Of the
having the force Of law
This is the simple and plain inter-
probation Of simple and plain Ian
guage." In the application Of that
rule of construction this Court held
in that case that joint address to !
the Governor on the part Of both !
branches Of the Legislature calling |
for the removal of a public officer
was beyond the scope Of and unaf- |
fected by the referendum. The same |
rule applies here with equal force. |
This resolution. ratifying the pro- |
posed Constitutional amendment was |
neither a public act, q private act |
nor a resolve having the force Of |
law. 1t was in no sense legislation. !
1t was not signed by the Governor. |
nor could it have been vetoed by him. |
It was simply the ratifying act of
the particular body designated by
Article v Of the Federal Constitution |
to perform that particular act. The !
principles laid down in Moulton ". |
Scully are decisive Of this point.
The Supreme Court of Oregon in a !
case decided on April 90. 1919. |
passed upon this branch Of the ques-
ton where this same Federal amend |
ment was involved. and held that the |
term any act of the legislative as |
sembly." made the subject Of refer |
endum by the amended Constitution |
Of Oregon. did not include a joint |
but only proposed laws. |
v. Brown. $50 Pac. Rep. 1928. |
In conclusion it may be said that |
not only have all previous amend I
ments to the Federal Constitution I
been ratified by two-thirds Of the |
Legislatures Of the several states. but |
this particular Eighteenth Amend
ment, commonly spoken Of as the |
amendment. has already
been promulgated by Federal author
ties as having become a part of the
through this same ave.
nue.. ts,- ..-
The State Department. Of the Unit.
ed States. under date Of January 20.
1919. issued its proclamation an
nouncing that this Eighteenth amend
ment had been duly ratified by the
Legislatures Of three fourths of the
States including by name the State