Thе relators have requested the attorney general to file an information in equity to test the validity of a certain contract made by the warden and' board of control of the State house of correction and re
The relators claim that the constitutional amendment purporting to amend the Constitution by striking out section 3 of article 18 thereof was not legally submitted or adopted. It was submitted at the election held April 1, 1907, by a joint resolution, agreed to March 6, 1907, which prescribed the form of ballot to be as fоllows:
“Amendment to the Constitution relative to the teaching of a mechaniсal trade to convicts in the State prisons of this State.”
The joint resolution mаde no reference to Act No. 23 of the Public Acts of 1905, which is entitled—
“An act tо secure greater publicity concerning proposed amendments tо the Constitution.”
It was not presented to or approved by the governor. It is undisputed that the amendment was not submitted in the manner prescribed by the act of 1905. It is сlaimed that the joint resolution sets aside or suspends this act.
This is an appliсation for a mandamus to compel the attorney general to sign and filе such information in equity. It is argued that a joint resolution cannot set aside an аct of the legislature, and that the action of the legislature in submitting a constitutiоnal amendment cannot properly be termed a joint resolution; that the joint resolution adopted hy the legislature submitting the amendment in question does nоt in fact conflict with Act No. 23 of the'Public Acts of .1905; and that the ballot used did not intelligеntly present the question presented.
The answer to the first contention is that sеction 1 of article 20 of the Constitution confers the power upon the twо houses of the legislature, upon the requisite vote, to
As to the second and third .contentions, thеy are answered by the consideration that it is of no consequence what the legislature may have termed the resolution by which the action adopting the amendment to the Constitution is taken, whether it be called a “joint resolutiоn” or “concurrent resolution,” or be given neither designation. If in fact the legislature regularly adopts by a two-thirds vote the amendment, and determines upon its submissiоn to the people and prescribes the manner thereof, it is exercising a constitutional function, which cannot be restricted by any previous legislation. We think the resolution in question covered the same ground as was attempted to be covered by Act No. 23 of the Public Acts of 1905, and that it necessarily operated to substitute the notice prescribed in the resolution itself for thаt provided by the previous act.
As to the last contention, we think that the ballot used was sufficient to challenge attention to the subject, and that it is not necessary to set forth at length in the ballot the full terms of the amendment, if the notice gives sufficient information to the electors.
The application for mandamus is denied.