Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-04-28


three months in every county of the
State before the election at which
| it was submitted. as provided by
laws the fact that the state
| ment OF the question on the ballot
| lacked the title of the Act was
somewhat broader than the provi-
sion Of the proposed amendment
and that It seemed to refer to all
officers without exception and also
also to the election of their sue
cessors when the amendment itself
/ did not provide for the election of
successors, ETC., did not render the
ballot misleading so as to invalidate
the submission" That case. instead
of holding that 1.-THE statement Of
the question on the ballot lacked
the title of the Act" could not be
considered in construidg the valid
tty of the amendment, shows con-
ciusively and beyond peradventure
that 1t did consider both questions
and that If they had rendered the
ballot misleading it would have in
validated the submission.
The case of People VS.. Sewall, 7.
Pacific Reporter, 1877 is to the same
erect and the opinion discloses for
the nrst time in my experience In
the study and Investigation OF the
law that the entire contents of an
instrument could not be referred to
70 determine the meaning conveyed
oy It's language. In the above case
IS neId, That fact that the pro-
poSeu amendment was submitted
unaer a misleading and deceptive
a.IIe ooes not invalidate its adoption
WIEN II ls not shown that any elect
or was deceived by the titIe.n IN
the contrary the necessary inference
Is, II shown that the elector. the
people, was deceived the amendme ant
would fail. But the opinion cites the
washington case to show that the
submission clause in the present
amendment, which makes absoluteJv
pam what the elector was voting
upon, should not be considered by
the voter at all in constituting thu
meaning OF the amendment,
NOW IT - held over and over tbat
the title of an amendment NAV not
oe stated at all in submitting an
menument to the people, vet If
supInitted 1t is considered in con-
strung or even defining the amend
1neht. IL Is therefore apparent that
the cases referred to in the opinion
prove exactly the contrary of the
purpose for which they were cited
Whereupon, If title which NAV not
De published at all in submitting an
amendment is to be Considered in
determining the very life of the
amendment, what can not be said
under this very decision in favor OF
considering the submission clause OF
tne amendment can not be sub.
mitted at all. The submission clause
necessary part of the proceed.
ure In submitting an anne lment
me amendment and the submission
are one ana inseparable in the ma
cHlhery or submission. The amend
ment can not be adopted without
the submission and the submission
clause has always been regarded a
statement of the question upor
which the people were to vote and
1t is entitled to be so regarded.
1t seems to me, therefore. with al
J due respect to the opinion, that the
submission of the solemn making OF
the fundamental law is sometime
more than the formula for mixing
dough for the making of cake o,
the compromising of ingredients for a
salad dressing. / should not use the
comparison did not the opinion with
the single word formula" uncere-
moniously wipe out all consideration
of the submission clause as having
anything whatever to do with the
reconstruction of the amendment or
the part of the people.
Now it is apparent from the cita
lions of the opinion itself that the
submission clause should be consid-
cred in constituting a constitutions
amendment. 1 have already shown
that the opinion does construe the
amendment although it says the Ian
guage Is so plain that there is moth
ing to construe, and that it has COM
pletely eliminated the word Gov
ernor" and the word Council from
the amendment and given them a
sui generis meaning. But the opin-
ion says 1.-THE doubt, if any exists
Is based only upon the question sub
mitted to the voters; but that is nc
part of the amendment. OF course
it was no part of the amendment
but it told the people what they were
voting upon and If deceived, then II
is to be considered as abrogating the
amendment or unless construed as
stated in the clause of submission
Keep in mind that this Is the inter-
probation found in the case, cited in
the opinion: and the additional case
1 have cited to the same effect.
| And let me say that any other
Interpretation would be mock
cry and travesty on judicial In
depreciation. Fraud and deceit will
avoid the most solemn instru-
ment and overturn the most elabo-
rate transaction. Whereupon
we now come to the question
whether the people were deceived in
voting for the amendment, as the
opinion interprets 1t. Whenever the
governor and council, etc. The opinion
says it should read whenever Ralph
! o. Brewster and the members of the
council individually. as / have emu
merated. upon complaint. etc" And
yet the opinion says, THE electorate
therefore must be hold to have had
full knowledge of the terms of the
amendment" The people, not the leg
islature nor the court make constitu-
| tons. Therefore the assumption that
the people had to have knowledge does
not mean that they had constructive
| knowledge but that they had actual
| knowledge. In other words, that the
people in voting upon the amendment
! understood it to have the same con-
struction that has been placed upon II
by the opinion. But this is not all.
| They are held to have had knowledge
of the meaning of the amendment not
withstanding the statement of the Leg
| islature in specific terms of the ques-
tion upon which they were to vote. I'm
less it shall be held that the people
had no business to read the formula
at all, they voted upon the following
question: "ShalI the constitution be
/ amended granting the governor,
by the consent ana advice of the coun-
Gil, the power to remove sheriffs." For
If they had a right to read and con-
slider that question, then the people