Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-01-15
sentsd n the making constitutions and

sented m the making constitutions and
laws" T
The brief argues. then, that mas
much as an amendment when It. be-
cures . majority Of all the votes cast,
must be submitted to the legislature
for ratification it follows that when
it does not receive such a majority Of
all h votes cast. no further steps.
should be taken. The question. then,
is on the. determination Of the Ques-
ton as to whether OF not the amend.
ments received q majority of all the
votes cast. \
The brief contends that the consti-,
tuition Of the state makes no provision,
for the state beard OF canvassers, and
consequently no powers ARE confer,
red, and no duties imposed on it by
that instrument -. It refers to the
statutory provision in section 1011,
the ~canvassing board. This law was
enacted before the adoption of the
constitutional amendment providing
for amending the constitution by In
itiation. The only mode of amending
the constitution at that time was by
legislative initiation, the brief holds,
and that 1t canvassed the vote and
made report. on amendments under
section 202 as 1t then stood, ''but had
no reference, and~was. inapplicable to
canvass1ng, determining and certify
ing the result Of q general election
with respect to proposed amendments
initiated by petition under subdivision
2 of section 202." 81
The brief then points out that there
"is an entire absence of any express
authority in the statute for said board
of to canvass, determine,
or certify to the results of an election
demanded by subdivision 2, and the
only question then is, whether the
board can, legally and officially, and
with any legal force or effect. per-
form an act that is wholly outside of
the express terms in which the statute
creating the board has defined it's
powers and prescribed its duties. If
not, then any action Of the state board
of in the premises is un-
autho lied, and consequently Of no.
more legalsforcet or effect than the
action Of unofficial. individuals would
be-" .s@' rs -a,~
Refers to New Rockford Case.
Mr.. stutsman discussed the question
Of jurisdiction at some length. He
refers to the decision of the court in
the New Rockford capitol removal
case, in which the court unanimously
assumed jurisdiction, and, despite the
fact that the decision Of the court in
that case upon the merits has been
overruled in the recent case Of
Twichell VS.. Hill, 1--WE feel that the de-
cision on the question Of jurisdiction
in the New Rockford cas- was mani
testify right"
He refers to the contention that the
question at bar is a merely legislative
one; and, therefore, not for the court
to review, and the answer Isl. "ThAt
the proposal and adoption of a con-
stitution is not in any sense a legis-
lative act. and hat while it may not
perhaps be classified as a function of
either Of the three departments of the
government as created by the consti-
tuition, yet non the less it is a pro-
ceeding entirely distinct from a legis-
lative act"
1t refers to the constitutional pro-
vision for the judicial power of the
state, citing the fact that it is vested
in a supreme court, (which shall have
power to issue writs of habeas corpus,