said State be, and the same here now is agreed to and referred to the General Assembly of said State to be chosen at the next general election: Amend Section 1 of Article 4 of said Constitution to read as follows:

Section 1. The style of every law shall be: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana," except such laws as may be passed by vote of the electors as herein provided, and such laws shall begin as follows: "Be it enacted by the people of the State of Indiana," and no law shall be enacted except by bill or by petition and vote of qualified electors.

Sec. 2. The legislative power upon all measures for the government of the whole State shall be exercised by the Senate and House of Representatives. The legislative power upon all measures for the government of any municipal division of the State, such as city and town, shall be exercised by the legislative body thereof and by the Senate and House of Representatives, and in addition thereto, shall be vested in the qualified electors thereof.

Sec. 3. The right to reject any measure passed by the Senate and House of Representatives, affecting the whole State, shall be vested in the electors of the State qualified to vote for the members of the Senate and House of Representatives; the right to reject any measure affecting less than the whole State, passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, shall be vested in the qualified electors of each municipal division in so far as the measure shall affect such division; and the right to reject any measure passed by the legislative body of any municipal division of the State, such as city and town, shall be vested in the qualified electors thereof.

Sec. 4. The Senate and House of Representatives at its first session after the adoption of this amendment shall, and when necessary from time to time thereafter may, pass laws to carry the amendment into effect. Such laws may provide that measures for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety shall take effect immediately, but must provide that no other measure shall go into effect until the expiration of a period fixed by the legislature for filing petition for a vote of the electors on any bill passed, and if such petition shall be filed, then not until a vote is had thereon. Should the law or laws to carry the provisions of this amendment into effect be passed as hereinbefore required, or, if passed, be objected to by qualified electors, they, in number not less than five per centum of the votes cast at the last election for members of the General Assembly, may, with

in ninety days after the adjournment of any legislature, sign and file with the Secretary of State, a petition or petitions to enact a law or laws for such purpose, and the Secretary of State shall submit the law as passed by the Senate and House of Representatives, if any, and such laws proposed by the petitioners to the vote of the qualified electors at the next regular State election for a choice thereof, and the law or laws in favor of which the largest number of votes shall then be cast shall be declared adopted.

Sec. 5. Any measure enacted by a vote of the qualified electors shall not be repealed or altered without a vote of the electors on the proposed repeal or alteration.

Sec. 6. Nothing in the Constitution shall be taken or construed to limit the foregoing power of the legislation vested in the qualified electors, nor to require the presentation to or approval by the Governor or any other officer of any law enacted by a vote of the electors, and all provisions therein in conflict herewith are hereby rescinded and annulled.

Resolved, That in submitting this amendment to the electors of the State to be voted on it shall be designated as Amendment No. 1.

463.

Constitutional Convention (January 25, 1899).

One attempt was made to call a constitutional convention. On January 25, Mr. Enoch G. Hogate introduced a bill in the Senate providing for the calling of a constitutional convention. The bill was referred to the Committee on Revision of the Constitution, and reported favorably on January 31. On February 9, several amendments were made and the bill failed to pass by a vote of 19-26.

[Senate Journal, Sixty-first Session, 274.]

Senate bill No. 243, entitled: A bill for an act to provide for the call of a convention of the people of the State of Indiana to revise, amend, alter or make a new Constitution for said State.

464.

Governor's Proclamation on Constitutional Amendments Vote (November 30, 1900).

The Governor's proclamation declaring the vote on the proposed constitutional amendments was issued on November 30, 1900. See Appendix X.

[Mount Messages..., 1897-1901, 68.]

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCLAMATION.

To the People of Indiana:

Indianapolis, Ind., November 30, 1900.

It is hereby announced and proclaimed that at a general elec

22-5055a

tion held November 6, 1900, two proposed constitutional amendments, known as No. 1 and No. 2, were submitted for the ratification or rejection of the qualified electors of the State; and subsequently, to-wit, on the 20th day of November, 1900, it was certified to me by the Secretary of State that the total vote on said amendments, as tabulated and counted for said amendments, was as follows:

The total vote for the first proposed amendment was 314,710; the total vote given against said proposed amendment was 178,960.

And that the total vote given for the second proposed amendment was 240,031; and against said second proposed amendment, 144,072.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the great seal of the State of Indiana, at the Capitol in Indianapolis, this 30th day of November, A.D. 1900.

465. In re Denny-Supreme Court and Lawyers Amendments Declared Not Adopted (November, 1900).

The Supreme Court and lawyers amendments were submitted to the voters at the general election of November 61, 900. At that election, 664,094 votes were cast for presidential electors and 655,965 votes for governor; 240,031 votes were cast for the lawyers amendment and 144,072 against, and 314,710 votes were cast for the Supreme Court amendment and 178,960 against. A majority of the votes cast for Governor was 327,983, and the largest number of affirmative votes cast for these amendments fell 13,272 votes short of a majority. On November 30, the Governor issued his proclamation declaring the vote cast for and against each amendment but did not state whether either had been adopted or rejected. On the assumption that the lawyers amendment had been adopted by the electors, and without waiting for the enactment of new statutes to carry the amendment into effect, the Marion Circuit Court established rules for ascertaining the fitness of candidates for admission to the bar, and appointed a board of examiners. Thereafter, one Denny, applied to be admitted to practice law in the Marion Circuit Court, alleging as qualifications only that he was a person of good moral character and a voter in Marion county, and he declined to take the examination prescribed. The Marion Circuit Court refused to admit Denny to practice, proceeding in its contention on the assumption that the lawyers amendment had been adopted. Denny thereupon appealed; the case was heard and decided at the November term of 1900; the decision of the lower court was reversed, the highest court holding that the proposed amendment

had failed of adoption, because it had not been ratified by a majority of the votes cast at the election. The opinion of the court was written by Mr. Justice Baker and a dissenting opinion by Justice Jordan.

The leading affirmative declarations of the court in this case were the following: (1) The authors of the organic law never intended that any of its safeguards should be abrogated by a failure to demand the abrogation. (2) The indifference of the many should not be a positive element in effecting changes in the organic law desired by the few; judgments effecting changes in the Constitution should not be taken by default. (3) The Constitution should stand unaltered until the sovereign majority by affirmative action, express their desire for a change. (4) Majority means "more than half." Electors are persons legally qualified to vote. Voters are either persons who vote or persons who are legally entitled to vote. (5) In the absence of registration, the number of persons legally qualified to vote is determined by the election itself, which number, because of deaths, removals and accessions, is a "continually variable quantity."

The leading arguments advanced in favor of the theory that the amendments had been adopted but which were rejected by the court, were the following: (1) The election of 1900, as to the proposed amendments, was a "special election." An act of 1889 provided a method for submitting constitutional amendments to the voters, by printing the proposition to be voted upon on the State ballot. The act of 1899, under which the two amendments under contemplation were submitted, required the clerks of the several circuit courts to prepare separate ballots containing the proposed constitutional amendments. Because the act of 1899 did not conform to the act of 1889, the election of 1900 was alleged to be a "special election" as to the proposed amendments submitted, and the court could not, therefore, take judicial knowledge of any election returns except those of the alleged special election. The court rejected this argument and held: (a) That an act of one General Assembly does not have "the effect of a constitutional restraint" upon the action of a successor; (b) "Prior to the designated time, there is no constitutional power in any general assembly to speak authoritatively on the subject of the submission of proposed amendments." Since there was but one voting place, one set of election officers, one poll list, one delivery of tickets, one standard of qualifications, one act of voting and one recording of that fact, the election was not special but general. (2) Because the number of persons who were entitled to vote at the election in excess of the 664,094 who actually voted for presidential electors, was a matter of conjecture, it was permissible to indulge the conjecture that there were no more persons entitled to vote on the proposed amendment than the 240,031 voting for, and the 144,072 voting against. (3) "A majority of the electors of the State" does not mean "a majority of all the electors of the State." The court replied that "the one form of expression may be more extensive than the other, but it is not more inclusive." (4) Only the votes counted for and against the proposed amendment in question should be considered in determining the number of the electors of the State.

Two conclusions of the Swift case were cited, one with approval and one with disapproval. (1) The conclusion that "It requires at least a majority of all the votes cast at the same election to ratify a constitutional amendment" was upheld. (2) The second major proposition of the Swift case was over

turned. That proposition was that the proposed amendment under contemplation had not been adopted because the court judicially knew that more electors had participated in the township elections than had voted for and against the proposed amendment. Also, because it did not affirmatively appear that the amendment was adopted or rejected it might be resubmitted. The court in this case followed the dissenting opinion of Justice Niblack to the effect that the court cannot take judicial notice of the results of local elections. If the amendment had been submitted at a general election, with the same results, it would not have been adopted. But as township elections are local, and the court cannot take judicial notice of the returns, the amendments had therefore been ratified by a majority of the electors voting at the election at which the amendments were submitted.

OPINION OF THE COURT.

[156 Indiana 104.]

...If a majority of the electors of the State shall ratify a proposed amendment, it shall become a part of the Constitution; otherwise not. There is no room for construction. The language is too plain to admit of quibbling. "Majority" means "more than half." "Electors", with reference to an election, means, according to the lexicographers and universally accepted usage, "persons possessed of the legal qualifications entitling them to vote. The word "voters", on the other hand, has two meanings, "persons who perform the act of voting", and "persons who have the qualifications entitling them to vote." Constitutions are drafted with care. The framers of our Constitution deliberately selected and used the words in the meaning of which there could be no ambiguity. The sentence, "If more than half of the persons in the State who possess the legal qualifications entitling them to vote shall ratify the proposed amendment, it shall become a part of the Constitution', is a cumbersome equivalent. The idea is clearly and more succintly expressed in the wording of the Constitution. No other standard for the adoption of proposed constitutional amendments may be set up by this court, becomingly or lawfully, than the one fixed by the Constitution-the affirmative ratification by "a majority of the electors of the State." So, in any case, the question becomes one, not of constitutional construction, but of evidence.

It is universally held that, in the absence of a provision for registration, the number of persons who possess the qualifications entitling them to vote at a given election is determined by the election itself. Deaths, minors coming of age, disfranchisements, removals from the State, or from the county, township, ward, or