Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-04-04
CHRISTlANSON SHOWS
HOW CANVASSlNC BOARD CHANGED
MEANING OF N. D. CONSTITUTION
tcontinued from Page g.,

mon use, and ftted for common un.
The people make them.
people adopt them; the people
the help Of common sense, and cannot
presumed to admit IN them any
reconcile meaning or any cxtraordi-
gloss" And It does not follow,
logically or dramatically, that
because q word IL found In one con-
i1ection in the constitution with a def
mite sense. therefore tho same sense
nection in-which It occurs. This would
to suppose that the trainers weigh
ed only the force Of single words, as
philologists or critics, and not whole
clauses and objects, as statesmen and
practical reasoners." (Story on Const.
Sec. 464).
In my opinion there is no room for
doubt as to what was lean by tho
phrase, "a majority of all the legal
votes cast as such general election"
contained in the section subdivision
Of section 2o2 Of the constitution It
exactly what the people of this |
state uniformly understood 1t to mean !
prior to the election held in November !
1918. It still . that. For, as
Judge Cooley said, "a constitution is
not TO be made to mean n thing at
~e ~sAN oA1OSAAC g. j oAUSVS
quent time when the circumstances
may have SO charged as perhaps to
make q different rule In the case seem
desirable. A principal share Of the
benefit expected from written consti-
buttons would be lost IL the rules they
established were so flexible as to bend
to circumstances Or be modified by
ture which should allow d change in
public sentiment. to influence it in CIV
ing a written constitution a construc-
ton not warranted by the intentions
OF Its founders, would be Justly
chargeable with reckless disregard Of
ontcial oath and public duty; and IL
ITS course could become precedent.
THESE instruments would be of little
avail. What q court is to do,
therefore, Is to declare the law as
written. leaving it to the people them
selves to make such change as new
circumstances may require" (Cooley's
Const. Linn. 7th Ed. S9).
certain procedural and jurisdiction-
al questions are discussed in the ma
jority opinions. In as much as my as
sociates have deemed it proper to de-.
eide the merits Of the controversy I
shall mo- consider or express any
opinions upon the other questions
considered by them. It is important
however to note that the opinions of
n majority members are all based
upon the theory that the state board
OF canvassers was acting under statu-
DRY authority in certifying their fnd-
lnss as to the votes cast upon the
constitutional amendments involved
IN this proceeding. For the reasons
stated In the opinions which ], pre-
pared and filed in State ex-rel. Lindo
Va. Hall, 81 N. ID. 81, Sc and in State
ex-rel: vs. Hall, N. D. I was, and still
am OF the opinion that there was no
law under which such constitutional
amendment could be proposed or
submitted for ratification or rejec-
ton. ! am. also. OF the opinion that
there was and is no law under which
the board Of canvassers were author
lied to make any determination what
ever with respect to such amend.
ments. The only provisions relating
to the determination and c%erti1cation
J OF the result of votes east at any cleo
ton upon proposed constitutional
1926, Compiled Laws. 1t is under
these sections that the state board. OF
c~anvassers claim Authority to act.
These sections read: For the purpose
OF canvassing and ascertaining the re-
suit OF the votes taken at any cleo
ton upon any proposed amendment
to the constitution or proposition sub
w WV VI 81 p0OHA0 w k31O
legislative assembly, the state board
OF ~canvassers shall proceed to exam
Inc such statements, and to ascertain
and determine the result and shall
certify under their hands a statement
Of the whole number Of votes given
for and the whole number Of votes
given against such amendment or
determine whether such amendment
or proposition has been approved and
ratified by q majority Of the electors
voting thereon. n shall make and
subscribe on such statement a certif1-
cate Of such determination" (sec.
1920.
1.-THE SECRETARY Of state shall record
in his office such certified statements
and determination; and II 1t shall ap-
pear that sue statement or PROPOSE
ton has been approved, ratified or
adopted as aforesaid, they shall also
make a record thereof, and cause such
record to be bound in the volume con-
tanning The original enrolled laws
passed at the next succeeding session
LOT the legislative assembly, and cause
such record to be published with such
laws" Sec. 1925, GIL. 1913.
These statutory provisions were en-
acted in 1892. They were enacted with
reference to the then existing method
of amending the 'constitution-the
method provided in subdivision one OF
section 202. They were enacted to
provide the NECESSARY machinery to
ascertain, record and proclaim the
tional amendment proposed by the
legislative assembly. An amendment
so proposed becomes a part Of the
constitution If it receives the approval
Of the electors. If 1t does not receive
such approval it is no longer pending