The first of these cases is a petition by eleven citizens of the Commonwealth “interested in the execution of laws” against the Treasurer and Receiver General and the commissioner of public welfare, praying for a writ of *313 mandamus to command the respondents to refrain from paying out any money or taking any action whatever under a purported law proposed by the initiative which was voted upon favorably at the State election in November, 1950, and which would strike out c. 118A of the General Laws in its entirety and substitute therefor a new c. 118A containing many provisions substantially different from those of the existing law. It is alleged that in several enumerated particulars the new law was not adopted within the requirements for initiative laws laid down in arts. 48 and 74 of the Amendments to the Constitution.
The second case is a petition in equity brought under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 29, § 63, inserted by St. 1937, c. 157, by forty-six taxable inhabitants of the Commonwealth against the Treasurer and Receiver General, the commissioner of public welfare, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and the comptroller, praying that the respondents be enjoined from expending any moneys of the Commonwealth in payment of any debts, obligations, or commitments arising out of, or expending any moneys of the Commonwealth in connection with, the. purported new c. 118A. This petition also attacks the constitutionality of the new law on grounds in general similar to those relied upon in the first case.
In the first case the” respondents demurred jointly. In the second case the respondents demurred on grounds common to all, and each respondent also demurred on grounds applicable only to himself. The respondents in each case answered without waiving their demurrers. Each case comes here upon reservation and report by a single justice upon the demurrers, the answers, and a stipulation in each case as to certain agreed facts. As the demurrers in the two cases differ materially, it will be convenient to discuss them separately. The merits in the two cases can readily be considered together.
The Demurrer in the First Case.
The demurrer in this case asserts that the petition is “replete with extraneous matter” consisting of references
*314
to the petitioners’ connection with an organization not involved in the subject matter, of “declamatory allegations,” of quotations from, or paraphrases of, the Constitution or of its alleged effect, of conclusions of law, of argumentative statements, and of incompetent quotations from a certain publication; and that the petition should not be entertained because of its “discursiveness” and because of its “unduly large content” of incompetent, irrelevant, and prejudicial allegations. Undoubtedly substantial portions of the petition are open to one or more of these objections. A bill or petition may be so overloaded with such matter as to obscure the cause of action intended to be stated and to render the preparation of an answer unduly difficult, and so to call for the sustaining of a demurrer.
Davis
v.
H. S. & M. W. Snyder, Inc.
The demurrer in this case also sets up the grounds that the petitioners have no interest in the subject matter of the petition, and in any event that they have another adequate remedy. Both of these contentions are answered by
Brewster
v.
Sherman,
What has been said in effect also disposes of the contention that the petitioners have another adequate remedy and so cannot maintain a petition for a writ of mandamus. The other remedy suggested by the respondents as adequate is a petition under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 29, § 63, inserted by St. 1937, c. 157, to prevent the expending of moneys of the Commonwealth in connection with the new purported law, that is to say, a petition similar to that in the second case
*316
now before us. We do not consider the statutory remedy, aimed as it is only at the expenditure of money, as an adequate substitute for the broader remedy under the principle hereinbefore discussed. That remedy goes beyond the mere matter of the expenditure of money. It extends to all governmental action having to do in any way with the enforcement of the new law, even if no expenditure of money is involved. It covers activities which cannot be reached by the statutory proceeding. It settles by the direct judgment of the court the entire issue as to whether one purported law or the other will govern the subject matter. In short, the real question here is much more than a question of money. It is whether it is the public duty of administrative officers of the Commonwealth to administer an important public service according to one statute or according to another and different statute. It is not, as in
Tuckerman
v.
Moynihan, 282
Mass. 562, 568-569, a question of the performance of what for the lack of a better term may be called a “private ” duty owed to the Commonwealth regarded as a corporation. That case is distinguishable. It might well be that the reasoning of the court in a proceeding under c. 29, § 63, would necessarily indicate whether or not the new law was valid, but that cannot, we think, be considered the full equivalent of a writ of the court directly and finally commanding the duties of public officers in all respects in relation to the new law. For these reasons we think that this case is distinguishable from
Finlay
v.
Boston,
Another ground of demurrer is that the petition does not sufficiently allege “the right, power, duty, authority or intent of the respondents or either of them to take or refrain from taking the action or actions referred to in the petition.” It is plain, however, that if the new law is valid, the Treasurer and Receiver General will have duties to perform in *317 relation to its financial .provisions and to the reimbursement of cities and towns for sums paid out by them for old age assistance, and since the new law would be administered under the supervision of the department of public welfare, the commissioner of public welfare, under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 121, § 2, would have charge of its administration and enforcement. There is, to be sure, no express averment that these officers will attempt to put the law into effect, and there is. no averment that any appropriation has yet been made which can be expended for that purpose; but as a practical matter it seems a necessary inference that where a law has been voted upon favorably by the people at an election, in the absence of any decision to the contrary, these officers will in all probability assume its validity and act accordingly, and that appropriations will be made as required by art. 48, “The Initiative,” II, § 2, on the assumption that the law is valid. We think that action by the respondent officers is shown to be sufficiently imminent to warrant the bringing of the petition. Requirements of allegations of this sort must not be made so strict that there is serious danger that suit cannot be brought in time to prevent illegal action.
Still other grounds of demurrer involve matters of sub- ■ stance which are the same in both cases and are covered by what is hereinafter said in dealing with the merits.
The Demurrer in the Second Case.
There is nothing in the contention that in a taxable inhabitants’ petition only one department or officer can be made respondent, or in the contention that the petition is multifarious because it refers to more than one transaction. If several departments or officers are about to play their respective parts in an illegal expenditure or in a connected course of illegal expenditures it would be absurd to require a separate petition for each officer and each expenditure.
It is further asserted that there are no allegations that appropriations have yet been made, and that illegal action
*318
is not alleged to be sufficiently imminent to justify bringing the petition. We have already dealt with a similar ground included in the demurrer in the first case. In this second case, however, our attention is directed to
Fuller
v.
Trustees of Deerfield Academy, 252
Mass. 258, 260. See
Amory
v. Assessors
of Boston,
The petitioners have sufficient interest to maintain this petition. They are “not less than twenty-four taxable inhabitants of the commonwealth, not more than six of whom . . . [[are] from any one county.” They bring themselves within the express words of the statute. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 29, § 63, inserted by St. 1937, c. 157. In
Richards
v.
Treasurer & Receiver General,
The only allegations in the petition that the respondent Secretary of the Commonwealth will have any part in any illegal expenditure are that he intends to approve vouchers for the payment of money for printing, publishing, and *320 distributing the new c. 118A as part of the laws of the Commonwealth. As against a demurrer this allegation seems to us sufficient, if the new chapter is not in truth a part of the. laws of the Commonwealth. See G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 5, § 2, as amended by St. 1945, c. 252. The duties according to law of the respondents the Treasurer and Receiver General, the comptroller, and the commissioner of public welfare in connection with payments of moneys by the Commonweálth seem to us sufficiently obvious, and the probability as matter of common knowledge, if not of express allegation, that these officers will attempt to perform these duties in connection with the new c. 118A seem sufficiently great, to render the petition good as against the special grounds of demurrer set up by them. In dealing with the merits we shall have more to say relative to any obligations incurred prior, to knowledge of this decision.
Still further grounds of demurrer in this second case will be adequately and more conveniently covered in dealing with the merits.
The Merits in Both Cases.
Massachusetts since 1780 has been governed by a written Constitution, wherein the various organs of government are enumerated and their powers defined. The people themselves and all branches of their government, legislative, executive, and judicial alike, are bound by it and owe to it implicit obedience. By that Constitution, until the adoption by the people in 1918 of art. 48 of the Amendments, all power to enact laws was vested in the Legislature. By that amendment provision was made whereby in a carefully prescribed manner and with certain precisely defined safeguards designed to make certain that there should exist a wide popular demand, to prevent hasty action, to promote wide publicity, and to acquaint the voters with the proposed laws and with the arguments for and against them, laws could be enacted by direct popular vote, except in relation to certain “excluded matters.” Since the people have them
*321
selves adopted the Constitution with its amendments for their government, they are bound by the provisions and conditions which they themselves have placed in it, and when they seek to enact laws by direct popular vote they must do so in strict compliance with those provisions and conditions. See
Bowe
v.
Secretary of the Commonwealth,
It is proper to observe at this point that we cannot agree with the argument of the respondents that because the new c. 118A has actually been voted upon and certified by the Secretary of the Commonwealth it is conclusively presumed to be valid whether or not the requirements of the Constitution have been followed. This is a misapplication of the principle that the enrollment of a statute is conclusively presumed to embody the action taken by the Legislature upon it.
Field
v.
Clark,
The constitutional legality of the method by which the new c. 118A was purportedly adopted is attacked principally on the following grounds: (1) that the provisions contained in it for the application to old age assistance of the receipts from meals taxes and from horse and dog racing and liquor licenses constitute “a specific appropriation of money from the treasury of the commonwealth,” a matter which by art. 48, “The Initiative,” II, § 2, is excluded from an initiative measure; . (2) that the measure is substantially the same as one previously submitted to the people at the election of 1946 and was therefore disqualified under “The Initiative,” II, § 3, as appearing in-art. 74, § 1, of the Amendments; (3) that no vote was taken upon the measure in the General Court, as required by art. 48, “The Initiative,” V, § 1, so that it was impossible to include in the ballots or in the information sent to voters any statement as to the votes of the General Court, as required by “General Provisions,” III, IV, as appearing in art. 74, § 4; and (4) that no “fair, concise summary” of the proposed measure was *323 printed at the top of the blanks provided for the use of “subsequent signers” of the initiative petition or on the ballots, as required by “The Initiative,” II, § 3, as appearing in art. 74, § 1, and by “General Provisions,” III, as appearing in art. 74, § 4. If it were necessary to pass upon all of these contentions, each would require most serious consideration, but since we are clearly of opinion that the requirements of the Constitution were not observed in regard to the “summary,” we deem it unnecessary and unwise to discuss the other contentions argued.
“The Initiative,” II, § 3, as appearing in art. 74, § 1, provides that “a fair, concise summary, as determined by the attorney-general, of the proposed measure,” as it will appear on the ballot, shall be printed at the top of each blank furnished for the use of signers of the initiative petition after the first ten, and “General Provisions,” III, as appearing in art. 74, § 4, provides that such summary “shall be printed on the ballot.” Before the amendment introduced by art. 74, instead of “a fair, concise summary, as determined by the attorney-general” the wording had been, “a description to be determined by the attorney-general, subject to such provision as may be made by law.” Art. 48, “General Provisions,” 111. Under that wording it had been held after careful consideration that the sufficiency of the “description” presented a justiciable question, notwithstanding that in the first instance the “description” was to be prepared by the Attorney General.
Evans
v.
Secretary of the Commonwealth,
Article 74 did, however, make a material change. Before the adoption of art. 74, the requirement was that
“a
description of the proposed measure ” should appear upon the blanks for “subsequent signers” and on the ballot. Art. 48, “The Initiative,” II, § 3. “General Provisions,” III. Now, instead of a “description,” the requirement is “a fair, concise summary.” Art. 74, §§ 1, 4. The word “description” had been interpreted as implying a very substantial degree of detail and had resulted in very long and cumbersome statements of details of proposed laws. See particularly
Opinion of the Justices,
■ In the present instance the “summary” was this, “This *325 measure provides for minimum payments of seventy-five dollars per month, or eighty-five dollars per month if blind, as assistance to deserving aged persons who have reached the age of sixty-three years or over and are in need of relief and support.”
The measure thus purportedly summarized is a complete revision of c. 118A. 1 It fills nearly eight pages of rather fine print. It necessarily calls for the expenditure of large sums of money. Clearly the voters were entitled to be informed as to how this money was to be obtained. The summary is wholly silent on this important point. It says nothing of the proposed application of the proceeds of the meals taxes, and Horse and dog racing and liquor licenses, in part payment at least.of the necessary expenses. It says nothing as to whether the burden will fall upon local municipalities or upon the Commonwealth or upon some other unit or district. A voter would have a natural interest in knowing this. The "summary” says nothing as to the public agencies, boards, or officers, whether local or otherwise, through whom the law is to be administered. It says nothing as to the standards for determining "need,” or whether there are to be any legal standards. It does not mention that assistance, where required, shall include hospital, convalescent and dental care, false teeth and eyeglasses, or that “Such assistance shall also provide for adequate medical care for every recipient of assistance under this chapter . . .,” although it cannot be doubted that these are material provisions having a tendency to increase the burden of the measure upon the public. All these matters not mentioned in the "summary” are the subject of express provisions in the measure itself. We cannot see how a purported summary that says nothing about them can be held to be "fair.” It is true that the proposed measure is intended to be a repeal of and substitute for the existing c. 118A, and that a great many of its provisions are the same as those of the existing law. There are, however, many important differ *326 enees. It is true that the Constitution requires a summary of the proposed measure and not of the existing law. But the “summary” here used does not mention the fact that the measure is a repeal of and substitute for existing law. Perhaps it may sometimes be possible to draft a “fair” summary merely by pointing out the differences between a proposed measure and the existing law, but at least where that is not done we can see no way to avoid summarizing the entire proposed measure in the manner and to the extent hereinbefore indicated, so that the voter may get a fair comprehension of what the law will be if the measure is adopted. It is plain that this was not done in the present instance. Here the so called “summary” is no more" than would fairly serve as a title for the measure. In no sense is it a summary of the contents ■ — much less a “fair” summary. It did not comply with the Constitution. We must so hold and must decide that the new proposed c. 118A was not adopted according to the Constitution and cannot take effect on June 1, 1951, as provided in the proposed chapter.
The respondents in both cases set up the defence of loches. The contention is that suit could have been brought at earlier stages in the initiative process and before thousands of signatures had been obtained and the measure had been submitted to the people. Even as between strictly private litigants there is no hard and fast rule about loches. The questions presented are usually questions of fact.
Moseley
v.
Briggs Realty Co.
The result of this opinion is that both petitions can be maintained.
We are of opinion, however, that the relief to be granted ought not to include any order against any respondent in either case forbidding payment' of an obligation incurred by the Secretary of the Commonwealth before notice of this decision for the printing of the purported new c. 118A. We do not think that such obligation was illegally incurred. See
Prince
v.
Boston,
For similar reasons we think there should be no interference with the payment of any obligation incurred before knowledge of this decision by the respondent commissioner of public welfare for services in making preparation to put the new c. 118A into operation on June 1 next, when by its terms it would take effect. We think that in the .circumstances it was not unlawful to make such preparation in order to prevent confusion and possible breakdown in the system of old age assistance, if the new chapter should be held valid. It is proper to make ready to meet problems which seem likely to arise, even if in fact they never do arise.
In the first case a peremptory writ of mandamus is to issue commanding the respondents named in the petition to continue to act in all respects according to the statutes enacted by the Legislature relative to old age assistance and without regard to the purported adoption by the initiative of the new c. 118A and to refrain from approving or paying any expenses incurred under or in consequence of said new chapter or from giving effect thereto in any manner, except that any obligation already incurred by the Secretary of the Commonwealth for printing the new c. 118A may be recognized and paid and the cost- of services incurred by the commissioner of public welfare before knowledge of this decision in preparing to put the new chapter into effect may be recognized and paid.
In the second case a final decree is to be entered perpetually enjoining and restraining the respondents and each of them from incurring any obligations or expending or taking any part in expending or in approving the payment of any money of the Commonwealth in pursuance of, or incidental to, or because of the purported adoption of, the new c. 118A, with the same exceptions as above set forth in connection with the writ to be issued in the first- case.
So ordered.
Notes
This measure is printed in full in the Acts and Resolves for 1950, at page 791.