Warfield v. Vandiver

VANDIVER. vs. Syllabus. were damages contract, was All provided ignored. several matters were these involved the issues raised by and should have been submitted to the pleadings, jury. The this of granting judgment erroneous. The prayer be must reversed. to reversed, the

Judgment pay appellee be- costs in this Court Court a new awarded. low, and -trial 23rd, 1905.) (Decided March WARFIELD, Maryland,

EDWIN vs. MUR- of

RAY VANDIVER. by Proposing to Bill Amendment the Constitution Passed the General Assembly Require Approval not Does the Governor—Pro- of Containing posed Legislation—Mandamus Amendment not Distinct Directing Publication Amendment. of provides Assembly that “the of Art. 14 Constitution, provided propose amendments that each amend- * * (cid:127) separate in a passed by shall be embraced bill ment three- * * all members elected to fifths of each the two Houses. published amendment shall be order of the Gov- bill ernor,” 1, 3, sec. that the Legislature etc. Art. declares shall consist Delegates styled a Senate House be General As- sembly Maryland. In other articles the Constitution the words Assembly” are used a sense whichexcludes the “General Governor. 2, provided guard By against hasty it is that partial legislative legislation department, and encroachments of the every bill passed shall, shall have the House and Senate which it before becomes law, presented it, If signs be to the Governor. he it becomes a law. it, passed' approve he does not and is If three-fifths vote of the veto, Held, houses over his also becomes law. pro- two that a bill posing an amendment formulated the General prescribed by in manner require Article does approval of the Governor before it people, can voted on authority no the Governor has veto such bill. Legislature In formulated an amendment to Art. x of the Consti-

WAEFIELI) vs. VANDIVER. Argument of Counsel. relating tution the bill directed the elective franchise. Section at to the voters the next submitted State proposed general election, said at said the vote on “and election by ballot, upon there shall be amendment shall be and each ballot Amendment,’ printed words, or written ‘For the Constitutional ‘Against as the voters shall elect.” the Constitutional Amendment’ by be Art. 1 of the Constitution that all elections shall ballot. declares question Code, 56, Art. enacts that when a constitutional upon vote, question placed popular submitted to shall be ballot “Against following, Amendment,” in “For Constitutional the form Amendment,” space the voter indicate in a where Constitutional against for or the amendment. whether he wish to cast ballot shall amendment, Held, of the bill re- that the second section lating people, not contain to the vote of the does such to its submission approval Governor, legislation since as to demand distinct the. by provisions required and the are those the Constitution some of its existing of the Code. provisions in accord with the enactments other are provided proposing an to the Constitution that bill amendment Another adoption of the State “for their be to the voters submitted should in Art. of the Con- pursuance of the directions contained rejection, in stitution, proposed the vote on said at the said election and printed ballot, by ballot shall be and each amendment be shall ‘Against Constitu. and Amendment’ words: ‘For Constitutional Amendment,’ law, immediately prescribed and after as now tional vote to the Governor return shall be made election due said as directed said against Article and said 14th Held, not contain that these do dis- of the Constitution.” approval. legislation the Governor’s requiring tinct publish require the to Governor will be issued mandamus A amendment of Art. directed manner Assembly, vote of the General passed a three-fifths the Constitution although pro- essentially legislative provisions, such containing and bill, not, passed as a been submitted when had posed amendment approval. for his for Anne Arundel from the Circuit Court County Appeal JJ.) Thomas, (Revell J.,C. before The cause was argued McSherry, Fowler^ JJ. Page, Boyd,

Briscoe, Pearce, Jones, Schmucker Attorney-General, H. Bryan, Jr., Edgar S. William Gans, for the appellant. for the sake ar- for is we contend

What (supposing for a modal regulation gov- the provision .gument, WARFIELD as. VANDIVER. the submission to the erning to be people eliminated), Maryland proposal amend the Constitution must be with all passed checks safeguards which the Constitu- tion provides for a bill into a enacting law. Not pro- posal law, itself is just as Constitution prescribes that a bill shall be in a certain passed law, a valid way so a bill passed same before can be val- way idly submitted in a people to amend the proposal Con- stitution. The whole question is one of intention. ex- Any amination of the cases on this subject will make it clear very that each Constitution is construed accordance with its own taken in phraseology, connection with the history policy State particular whose being construed. The Constitutions differ very States, in the various materially and a decided case in one State its own Constitu- construing tion would not have much in authority another State having a different its provision and a different history and policy. We insist this as most of the author- point, ities cited by the as conclusive on this appellee, can question be this readily on distinguished alone. ground

Prior to the 1851, Constitution of all amendments to the Constitution were made the by General Act by Assembly, at session, one passed a Act at confirmatory passed the next There session. was no submission to the people. Hinkley’s Const., Notes to 1851; 1776, 59, Constitution secs. of 60. of

By Art. 11 the Constitution of the 1851, Legislature at required its first session the returns immediately succeeding States, of census of the for ascer- every United to pass law at' the next election of the sense taining delegates, convention for people calling altering regard law, the the 1851, Constitution. the Constitution of Under to take sense of could not without pass people, Governor’s approval. 1864,

By x, the Constitution Art. x was provided: amend- Assembly any “Section The General propose ment or amendments to the which shall be agreed Constitution vs. VANDIVER. three-fifths of all elected to both Houses. members amendments, Such with yeas thereon, House, nays shall be entered on the of each journal shall session, with the laws printed at the same passed Government,” order of published etc.

“Section 2. Whenever two-thirds the members elected each branch the General shall think it Assembly necessary revise, to call a convention to amend or change Constitu- tion, shall recommend to the electors to vote next they at the election for members of the for or against convention,” etc.

Now, met, when convention of it had these models before It will be seen it. how fully and the Legislature Governor had making Be- part amendments. fore the whole 1851, had amend- power making ment. Constitution the two By Houses and the the law for passed sense of the ascertaining people, the distinction be- Houses, tween the two with the acting conjunction Gov- ernor as “The General and a Assembly,” concurrence simple of two-thirds of the members elected to each House in mak- electors, a recommendation to ing was clearly marked. x,

By General Assembly proposed, three'- acting by members, fifths its and their action was printed with the- laws at passed the same session. 2, the sec.

By “General do Assembly” notact; two-thirds of the members each of branch were to act; their action was. the; not to be printed laws; with the were not as acting men Assembly, but as selected to make recommen- dations because their simply being General Assembly was them supposed give special opportunity pass upon of desirability such a recommendation. They were se- as a just lected has sometimes been selected judge to appoint board, a school not because he is but because he judge, is a who has shown man been to so having elected responsi- ble as has position judge, intelligence, integrity good So that in 1867, distinction had judgment. been already - vox.. 101 yandiyer. Warfield vs. the “General Assembly” drawn between acting sharply such, of who a concurrence individuals happened has Assembly; and that distinction members of the General expressive been stated Constitution prior apt phraseology. seen, as

Now, it will be the argument progresses, authorities cited itself differentiates most of the distinction of case from other States from the at bar. appellee been in Maryland of have made A number proposals of The list follows : amend 1867. Removal cases. 1. 1874,'ch. 364. 1880, Election judges.

2. ch. 417. items distinct 2, sec. Veto of ch. Art. 1890, 17. 194. 3. bills. of appropriation charters 3, sec. Amending Art. 1890, ch. 48.

4. 195. corporations. Art. of R. Taxation. ch. D. 1890, 242. 15.

5. com- Election of county ch. Art. sec. 1. 7, 6. 1890, 255. missioners. of personal 3, ch. Art. sec. Situation 1890, 426. 51.

7. for taxation. property in- works 12, Art. sec. Sale of ch.

8. 1890, 3. 362. improvement. ternal Supreme Additional Judge Art. ch. 1892, 313. 4.

9. Bench. Art. Civil Service. ch. 1896,

10. 15. 459. of State’s Art. 5, Compensation ch. 1900, 11. 185. 9. Attorney. 3, sec. chi Art. Reapportionment 1900,

12. 4. 432. of Delegates. House representa- sec. 2. Senatorial ch. 469.

13. city. from tion amendments since the Constitu- are the proposed all

These In all them without exception, tion title, bill, in the form of a with an enacting the amendment as would read clause, section containing amended, section a modal containing another provision as

WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. submission to the were all people. They as laws passed just times, read are three had passed, engrossed, seal, the great were the Governor' signed by recorded with the Clerk of the with Court Appeals, published printed laws. us

This unbroken precedent gives kind of strongest leg islative construction of Constitution. All the 14 hold that a cases continuous construction has legislative great if not with “A controlling weight Court. contemporane construction ous placed upon particular provision of the or law ganic legislative department government, in and acted without ever acquiesced having been ques * * * tioned furnishes a very strong presumption the intention rightly interpreted.” Catholic Cathedral v. Md. Manning, 130; Mahew, Gill, State v. 2 487; Worman 72 v. Md. Koehler v. Hagan, 163; Hill, Iowa, 60 557; People 78 Sutherland, v. Supervisors, 504; 100 Ill. 495, Stat. Construc tion, 307—311; secs. State v. U. S. Fidelity Co., Md. 93 318. this

Even Legislature this bill passing intended to conform to the for the bill title, has a precedent, an enact- clause, and was ing intended be submitted to the Governor volume published printed laws of the State. These two Acts are chapters the published laws from State skip chapter There a gap left where these other two enactments were intended to be See of. .placed. 1904, pp. Acts. 173-5. will not do say construction amounts to because no

nothing ever objection made. The drafting of a proposed amendment is a matter, serious and it cannot which, that the form as supposed fact, a matter of was con- tinuously was not adopted regarded essential. Legislative rule, not, constructions do as a out of grow points, contested for, contested, if would decided point by the judiciary. Such constructions are unbroken, based^upon uninterrupted and such we usage, have fthis case. The presumptions, therefore, all in are our favor. What is meant “The General section Assembly”

of the Constitution ? VANDIVER. vs.

84 Argument of Counsel. means Assembly” that contends “General appellee the House houses, Delegates- the two Senate only “The General Assem- it means contends that The appellant is a part. in of which Governor organic its bly” capacity, in which Constitution of the A reference the other parts used, meaning. real is shows its the expression is Constitution by well settled that “the executive It is In a of the law-making power. approving component part the executive law, he is not act capacity supposed the laws it is to see that State, whose duty of the magistrate branch that is a of the executed; are part legislative properly distributed, is a unit though This the government. power Peirce, 2 in Fowler can act unison.” v. only parts Limitations, sec. Const. Cooley, Cal. 172; 153. The point in materia. the construction pari

Let us apply Assembly” “The is meant General by to be deeided is—what is expression article the same used. in In this same Art. 14? “shall that the amendment is Art. provided As- the General submitted in a form to be prescribed there means General sembly.” manifestly The expression is, Governor, that the Gen- with connection For as a in its character Legislature. eral Assembly organic As- Act General any passed by'the will conceded of submission of the the form sembly prescribing Governor, his name must be though signed in the expression included is not mentioned. He necessarily As thereof. Assembly,” component part “General a branch “The stated Cooley: power is almost confined exclusively of the legislative department Lim., Cooley, sec. of bills.” Const. approval 155. 2 of the same expres- In sec. is used: sion Assembly to be the of the General “Sec. 2. It shall duty *** the sense of the people law for taking

provide convention, denied etc.” It cannot be to calling regard "GeneralAssembly” includes in this section the expression Governor, law to take the sense of people for no WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. In with accordance

would be valid without signature. this, ch. was passed. the Act of Balti- “City entitled

So Art. rr Assembly may more,” The General “Sec. provides: * * * deem as it may in this make such Article changes ” “ Governor, Here, too, includes Assembly” best. of Assembly the Acts following and in accordance therewith 1888, 116; were ch. ch. 1870, passed: 397. the of sections of the

In each the Constitution following Governor, for includes the Assembly” “General expression 1, invalid: its action would be Art. without concurrence 34, 36, 4, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, secs. secs. 4, 5; 3, 29, 32, Art. 4, 39; Art. sec. 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55; 42, 49, 1, 6; 1, Art. secs. 11, 12, 3; 13, 5, sec. secs. Art. Art. 9; sec. 1. the see, of other of therefore, parts an examination by We “ rule, as a Assembly," the words General in its the organic legislative capacity, mean General Assembly Governor, the houses. and not two including simply are to rule, various where amendments in the States As as a of two houses the members acting be proposed by convention, is sort so expressly of provided. Conventions, 541, gives on Constitutional

Jamison in the constitutions most States. contained provision or amend- used is—“Any language generally in the Senate or ments to may proposed if the same shall be Representatives; House agreed * * * of the members elected to each of two by Houses, States, etc. In those the amendment not to but certain in each by by members Legislature, is not enactment, Their concurrence an expressed house. by form, other but a mere agreement. or any legislative by It is to cases cited con- by be noted that the were appellee, Constitutions, which gave power structions propos- General As- Legislature, amendments ing a certain number members in each but sembly, Griest, Comm. house, 568; v. L. R. A. together. agreeing 50 VANDIVER. WARFIELD vs. 864; Weller, Green v. Miss. In re File Neb. Senate ill, Koehler 441; Nesbit Col. v. 60 Ia. 650; v. People, H the amendments to the Constitution It was largely because certain number of in these were to be States in the house, a certain number members in one agreed the authorities cited other, and not Legislature, „to do with the question hold that the has nothing amendments. is not conclusive. The we have made above The argument mean two Assembly” possibly “General expression Governor, undoubtedly Houses to the exclusion used, in this sense in a few in- of Maryland in the Constitution instances, fact, in majority stances. But great for which we instances, all it is used in the sense nearly been have contending. " is made conclusive when we see that an But'the argument As- amendment is not to be “General only proposed by bill, bill. In Legislature sembly,” passing Not body. acts in its as a législative always organic capacity that the bill becomes a law in this case. It becomes a pro- bill, to be required by amendment. But posed being passed through all the fixed the Con- goes processes by necessarily stitution for the enactment of a law. bill,

The that the shall be form of amendment is proviso seen in the of the even more Commit- clearly original report before it revised tee to the convention of as to its The read: amendment or amend- style. “Any report specific ments to the be Constitution proposed by' by bill, the same be a Assembly, provided proposing separate amendment, which shall the entire article or section embody as the same stand when amended.” Con- Proceedings will vention, p. 349. insist that did Constitution all amend-

Why ments must be If the mere concurrence of a by bill? number of the members of House were all that were nec- each essary, House, should not a resolution in each why separate a in in or a other, resolution one House concurred vs. VANDIVER. house, in number each passed by requisite resolution joint correct, all be of the If the appellee proposition sufficient? would be in- an amendment is in necessary proposing vote, a three-fifths house, it it into one pass troduce The the other house. three-fifths of it concurred in by have essential thing each is the three-fifths in house concurrence of or safeguards against No checks according appellee. amendments, argues, he hasty proposition improvident of the Constitution. were within the contemplation it is settled that But well must be fol strictly mode of amendments

as to the Hill, v. valid. Koehler in order to make the submission lowed the Con Iowa, that whenever It also well settled bill, resolution is void. Henderson a joint stitution requires Collier, Rice, Ind. May 546; Boyns v. 251; v. 2 Col. App. Crane, 1 W. v. Va. 176. amendments in this case could not be that the proposed

So They a resolution. must be submitted submitted by validly would evidence the concur- why? But A resolution by bill. three-fifths of members elected requisite rence house, as as a There must be each well bill. something bill, method of passing preserving distinguished insist from resolution which caused the convention to should be in this and in no an other. way our bill into this is contention. A just And passing a law is surrounded well-known form of checks safe- in a authenticated definite way, guards. preserved In the of a bill a certain there are three way. passing considered, The checks and (a) safeguards things authentication, it. Its preservation. passing (b) (r) that When the Constitution amendments should provided bill, Assembly meant by be it proposed be these amendments should authenticated and passed, pre- served as bills are for the reasons of public plainest policy. does not stand itself,

Article Constitution as 14 Constitutions, articles in other do but uses corresponding bill,” “in a requires which a separate expression necessity WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. reference to Art. of the Constitution' to see- what a bill is and how it is Art. passed. 3, sec. 29, provides that “all laws shall be passed by bill,” original just as Art. that all provides proposed amendments shall be bill. separate bills,

Of the we relating note the following: 1. Shall have a title. Art. 3, sec. 29. -(cid:127)

. 2. Shall “Be begin. enacted.” May either house and originate altered, amended 3. the other. rejected by Art. sec. 27. Shall not in last originate ten of session, except on days 4. two-thirds vote. Art. 27. Shall read on three in each separate days house.

5. 3, sec. 27.

The of these clauses is to purpose hasty and im- prevent and to provident legislation the careful compel examination of Limitations, laws. Con. proposed Cóoley, p. 199.

Is it less amendments to important the Con- stitution should be carefully critically examined before issue from the they The are called Legislature? people them, true, it is but the pass cannot in people any way form in which are change submitted. They can only vote our yea nay. Again, the General to submit the obliged amendment in the precise form will have when amended the Legislature power (a would not have unless Gabbert expressly given. v. C. R. T. Co., & This is the P. Mo. usual legislative work.' 95.) into is, form put just law and requires, if more care its than a anything, law. preparation Jamison, Conventions,sec. Const. 538.

We, therefore, ask these pointedly Would the questions: if it amendment have been valid had been passed Without a 2. Without I. title. clause. enacting 3- ten days introduced within the last of the session If without Without three separate two-thirds vote. readings each house? fact, it was with all these passed

As matter of prescribed VANDIVER. vs. 89 Argument Counsel. means bill by it not because But Was passing forms. why? a bill into to transform necessary all requires things a law? bill, aof the authentication for provides Constitution should the Legislature actually that measure passed

so or fictitious or altered not a false applied, be correctly measure, pro- we the following therefore have And changed visions: its third reading. before bill shall be engrossed

1. Every of legislation. is an essential part 3, Art. sec. Engrossment 27. Smith, Md. v. wling Do 9 279. Art. 3, shall be sealed with the seal. great bill

2. Every sec. 30. in the presence Shall signed

3. and House Clerk of Senate officers and Chief presiding Delegates. 30. bill, for is method authenticating

This the only prescribed method and very its effective It integrity. securing when it within the obviously was Constitution meaning amendments shall be bill. that proposed prescribed does that the provide yeas Article “entered on the with the journals nays proposed ” if the were re- amendments. Now amendments in full, to be entered on the journals by entered being quired out on the there be at least some journals, e. g., spread might authentication, inferior method far compulsory though in case bill. the method of a But has been flatly prescribed journals decided in that does mean Maryland entry full, an Wor- and that entry entry by sufficient. titling man v. Md. Hagan, that the contention of the there is no method appellee

So cannot Surely amendment. authenticating of the framers of be the intent the Constitution. this difference and a bill between a resolution just Iowa, Hill, led the Supreme

that Court in Koehler v. decision, decide, Iowa, contrary Maryland meant full. The Court journal entry entry WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER.

case, reasons out the distinction between a 554-59, pp. fully bill and a resolution an amendment to the Consti- proposing tution, enrolled, that bill must and shows a be signed Governor, its Houses, President of both and signed by anthenticated; for, therefore is and custody provided fully re- a an amendment to the resolution Constitution that, therefore, none of these and the journals quires things, amend- would authoritative evidence of the be official only ment. Hilton,

To the the case of Cal. same effect is Oakland v. 69 de- on the 490, where the of entry journal great purpose and form au- clared to be “to in preserve permanent enduring of the contents of the amend- and recorded evidence thentic on is, in the form in which it ment that appears proposed, for ratifi- such it submitted to the electors record cation.” the case a bill and shows

The then Court distinguishes “Here the necessity in the as follows: journal for entry amendment to the arises as to a point proposed enrollment, and with the deposit arid the law as to authentication not embraceit.” does Secretary State course saw In the framers of Constitution of Maryland, a amendment to the necessisy authorizing the amend- it requiring Constitution and fully provided itself, carried with it This, of all ment to be bill. cited as just of the we have Constitution method of bills. authenticating felt the force of case this

In this' the .Legislature bill, and did have it did signed argument. They engross did not have the of each house. But they president affixed, nor secure the signature seal State great some of the au- did follow Why Why? Governor. all They others? are neglect thenticating provisions most of them in the same section of the equally prescribed answer can be to this No rational given ques- Constitution. tion. “every of the Constitution

Article provides vs. VANDIVER. of the Court Appeals the office law shall recorded the great certified under published time be due printed, Courts, been as has manner seal, same several It is true that the Constitu* State.” heretofore usual but a bill which law is law,” but a “every nothing tion says the en recorded is really document has been passed. still document re law, a but the its effects rolled bill. In enrolled. has been passed which bill, mains one though becomes body, legislative a bill is “When duly passed an act of that body, is, a thing done.” Am. & Eng. Law, 2 Ency. ed. often used as Constitutions,the synonymous word“bill”

In Thus where or “Act.” “law” with the word bill should embrace more no local private that provided the word bill in held that was used it was than one subject, Act, an a bill. being perfected Act merely the law or sense of Sedegewick County v.Bailey, 703; 26 Janesville, Durkee v. Wis. R. A. Greist, L. 608; Com. v. Kan. 50 13 & ed., Am. 2 Eng. Ency., 26 p. it stated in is Again 555: Act. It is to be looked original bill is the “The enrolled book, attacked, the statute Act, in is to when the printed holds.” This and differ, if the two the bill as enrolled Court has which has shown that very clearly passed a bill become a is still the bill; engrossed law a that is that say, document which has the Governor received of the signature the of the furnishes two which presidents houses, & law, of Baltimore evidence still v. Berry a In bill. Auvey this lan Point used Ry. Co., Drum Md. Judge 41 must be “It is contended the law guage: appellant taken to be as we find it bill the ojfice evidenced aby filed this of the Gov Court under the seal great signature ernor, while, hand, on the other is insisted appellee for this journals Court to examine competent the two of the original houses bill with the engrossed endorsements thereon.” There are also to Constitu- cases amendments proposed tions w'here the Act Legislature distinctly passed by n WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. in the

called a bill after its filed office. For being appropriate Weller, the case of Greenv. Miss. Court example, “The record of a Act ofthe says: of this public Legislature State is the enrolled bill clothed with the solemnities required by Constitution, and filed in the office of State.’’ Secretary 441, the And of Nesbitt v. Col. People, case again, amendment, and in the Court, passed speaking Act, said, amendments were preserved by form of an “The enrolled bill.” that amendments should

When the provided therefore, bill, Assembly by they, the General proposed by used in a bill and passing meant in addition to the safeguards it, the same for preser- precisely authenticating to amendments. bill should also be Other- applied vation of a document, for the custody be no no wise, there would place no method of its integrity,' thrown around safeguards securing Governor. as bill copy publication precise Just in a is recorded the office of the eventuates law Clerk which and when so recorded is still an en- of Appeals, Court in a amend- bill, so a bill which eventuates rolled in the ment, reasons, same is recorded Clerk’s office and for the of the Court Appeals. realized at seem to have least Senate

much, their resolution directed this document to for by office of Court of be recorded Clerk’s Appeals. kind, was no this of unless authority any there Manifestly, of the derived from sec. Art. Constitution. 3 amendments to the It is that Constitution are not objected that, therefore, law-making constitution-making; only are the two houses of the interested Legislature parties seems to be the main and this argument people, Greist, v. L. R. A. We have case of Commonwealth 568. We conceded objection. answered that already partially to the Constitution is amendments not law- proposal sense, but there evidently can be no ordinary making to the Governor objection join constitutional having pro- with the houses of the General Assem- for amendment posal va. VANDIVER. of the Constitutional the intention It all depends upon bly. had express If said convention in passing by shall be terms, passed amendment every that proposed the approval with Legislature, of each house of three-fifths Governor, course, no The there, would be question. of the amendment to in issue is as how only point or without ap- with whether issue from Legislature, thus argument interference Governor. proval it was intended in Maryland that far made this brief shows be on should the Governor’s signature be- submit to people, in order validly amendment 14, wit., that the amend- cause of the terms of Art. special by the General ment should by be proposed bill. submit a pro- irrational

It is it would be objected that because for his to the Governor approval, posed members elected to must be three-fifths by passed of each house is house, of the members each and three-fifths over the Gov- a bill number authorized to repass precise is more than sound. ernor’s This plausible veto. argument bill sound, present any If it it would unnecessary were house had each to the for his which passed Governor approval it is well known more, and three-fifths, yet, vote by unanimously bill, though even every ordinary passed to the Governor houses, both must of be presented necessity, of Mary- in the history for his and it has happened approval, unanimously passed have land that bills which been legislation submitted when both houses of the Legislature, him, therefor, were vetoed he reasons giving sustained. unanimously reconsideration the veto Crouse, v. in State of this found An illustration principle a bill required decided that wherein it was R. A. L. a char- it was even though the Governor approval it, and even vote pass acter which a two-thirds required be overridden a veto could under the Constitution though a three-fifths vote. between to get has no right

It is that the Governor argued WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. 94=

Argument of Counsel. the two This, houses and the however, is people. merely the question. The Governor begging has to do nothing with ratification its adoption. His duty in reference to its to simply proposal people, whether it shall be and the form in proposed, which it shall be proposed. rational, It is not therefore, to speak Governor usurp- to power a ing people ratify proposed amendment. this,

In addition to it is conceded that when the sense of the is to be taken in to people a regard calling convention for the Constitution, the matter altering cannot be them without the of the Governor approval overriding veto, because sec. 2 of Art. “it provides shall be the duty of the General law provide for at the taking election to be held in the year every twenty thereafter, the sense of the years people regard calling convention altering assuredly, the sense of the taking question people revise the whole is a much more very Constitution important matter than sub- single change mitting people. The history, there- fore, of constitutional amendments in the of Maryland, State shows that the Governor was intended to be a party This, as seen, we have proposition. already has been rein- continuous, aby forced uninterrupted usage. is objected that Article of the Constitution provides bill or

that “The bills amendment or amendments proposing Governor,” shall be published by order and that means a bill as from an Act. The unreason- distinguished ableness such distinction any between bill and act has been already fully discussed. maintain that the

We authorities cited are appellee because construe applicable Constitutions that are different from the Constitution of essentially Maryland. In v. Hollingsworth Dallas Virginia, 378, it was Reports, held that joint resolution of an amend- Congress, ment, did not require signature the President. An examination of Article the Constitution of the United States, however, shows that the intention of that reiver. m. va

Warfield 95 Argument of Counsel. JVId.] of than an opinion more expression nothing to require was Article of the Constitu- necessary. were amendments that of both whenever two-thirds Congress, “That tion provides: shall amendments necessary, propose deem it houses shall Constitution, be valid to all intents pur- which shall this the Legis- when ratified Constitution of this poses part States, conven- several or by of the of three-fourths lature thereof, mode of one or other as the tions in three-fourths by Congress.” ratification should be how the amendment not provide Article did5 resolution, or how. bill or by whether proposed, Jamison case, Conventions, in explains on Constitutional the decision was that reached. why shows precisely of the of sub- after speaking question section says He the Executive: the other “On resolution joint mitting hand, of that it contem- Article shows a close examination amend- mere of opinion but a nothing expression plates being a body are That necessary. ments one, is deemed people, numerous and representing its branches that, whenever two-thirds of both pro- probable such is to be changes expedient, nounce organic particular be no at There is to large. submitting sense people no direc- consequently to vote propositions people, election, or returns of votes— for an making tions conducting short, a rule of action to officers citi- no prescribing zens, is to for the reason that all action subject under State laws. fully taken by separate agencies organized then, execu- necessity In this view and of this doubtful; opinion tive seems to be very approval are the authorities generally.” an- strengthened by made much argument already

other of the Constitution. After provision Article 14 the amend- for the of the bill publication providing election, ment to be voted for next ensuing general at the amendment or Article “At which the said proposed proceeds: submitted, amendments shall be to be prescribed form the General voters the Slate Assembly, qualified for ” adoption rejection. WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER.

This therefore, Article provides, for only passing amendment and it, but also publishing provides the General prescribe submission." form of This, course, must be a law which must be presented to the Governor his signature. The question now arises—was it not

(a) the intent of the Constitution that the amendment proposed form of submission should be contained in the same bill? If so it would seem conclusive of the question bar, at for in that bill, event the entire 1, section containing proposed amendment and section the form of sub- prescribing mission, e. how the ballots g., were to be prepared marked^ should be presented to the Governor for his signature. modal contained in regulations law, section a clearly for its provisions the voters govern and all the officers of elec- tion. Section no requires ratification On people. it is to be contrary, effectiveas a law the voters governing and officers of election in the election very at which the pro- amendment is posed submitted to the This construc- people. tion has behind it and in its favor the uninterrupted usage since Legislature, In every case of a amend- proposed ment, since 1867, the bill the amendment had two sections—section 1 containing amendment, a proposed section 2 the method of containing balloting prescribed by This Assembly. construction also in its favor has of on high authority Constitutional Conventions, Jamison secs. 547,'548, 556.

In New York the if in the form a resolution, proposal, not Governor, submitted to the a bill, it is if form of submittedto the Governor.

In and Minnesota the Michigan amendments are proposed accompanied by clauses them to submitting people single Act. It is the practice present for his Governor See approval. sec. 561.

But it was not suppose intended that the Legislature should necessarily present amendment proposed and the method submission in Act. single Suppose vs. VANDIVER. could, fit, if it an in one saw Legislature propose bill or bill and the form submission in another prescribe law, for it in the election how would the case general provide be affected under that construction ?

We must in the concrete case bar we dis- observe that at are did, as a matter combine cussing, Legislature fact, submission, amendment with the it is method the- of this If the Act which we are validity single discussing. Legislature had the amendment in one bill alone another, for the provided method submission in or left the method of elec- submission to the provision law, tion then another would But it did have arisen. question do this. Now when a for an amendment is contained in proposal I, not, and a method of submission in sec. does necessity, that the require entire Act should be presented ? The Act was intended by the Legislature an It was not entirety. intended it to be broken by up piece- meal.

This matter has been decided It is. precisely California. not necessary under its Constitution that the amend proposed ment and the method of submission shall be embraced the- same Act of the Martin Legislature. Commissioners, v.

Cal. But when in that these State two as a mat things, 419. fact, of ter were embraced Act, in a the Court held single the- of the signature Governor to be necessary. Hatch v. Stone man, 66 Cal. The Court “It will be remarked that say, 632. is, the power to an to propose amendment the Constitution vested two houses—Senate Assembly—and if two- all of the thirds members elected of to each the two houses- favor thereof, vote in it shall be of the the duty Legislature to submit such amendment proposed or amendments to the peo ple be voted on. The of the amendment proposal or amendments is not the by as such Legislature ordinary law, enactment of a and with the proposal Governor has to do. The Act is that of nothing two-thirds each branch But the Legislature. matter submitting vol. 101 vs. VANDIVER. is to the vote amendments the people quite dif- be done by That it is to a law Legislature,

ferent. effect, the enactment of a the Governor is and in law part that of the law-making power.” at be conclusive bar. question

This ought this is it is his mam argued by But appellee, (¡?) on branch of the case—that sec. is i good contention Governor, as it is only without signature invalid, as amendment; be it is a law may essentially invalid section signature; Governor’s requires and sec. i be allowed may be stand disregarded itself. It never is fallacious. I. was intended

This argument sec. i should con- that stand alone. the Legislature . Act, 2 in one intended nected with sec. Legislature this, More be whole. than integral connected one them evident, house, each it was intended when Act passed whole should submitted Governor for that the In is conceded appellee. This presence approval. no for the facts there is room principle part of these to stand and other be declared should be allowed part the law void. one valid and section another declaring principle severable, are and when it sections when only

void applies in the intention would Legislature seen can were not. But difference whether they separated make no in is clear that were of the Legislature the intent when de of the same thing, mutually parts as inseparable tended is void the other, then if one section whole on each pendent Md. Benzinger, v. void. State 488. n intention it no difference makes argues The appellee or not. That sec. 12 stands whether Legislature be amendment may the proposed declared void be can elec- under the terms of general to the people submitted force in his argument some There might (though tion law. to much then it would be entitled not think even do we 2 of for in provided if the method submission .sec. weight), VANDIVER. vs. Act for under the and the method provided general elec- tion law were the same. it is election law

By general provided: If election there be a-constitutional any question at or 51. vote, other be submitted to question popular any ballot in said shall be said question placed upon following Amendment,” “Against form: Constitutional “For Constitu- Amendment,” “Against Proposition,” tional “For Proposi- tion,” said shall be respective questions placed a col- mentioned, umn, so that as hereinbefore the same shall form or where voter space may indicate, a parallelogram clearly out, he hereinafter whether way pointed shall wish to his ballot for or cast the Constitutional Amendment, against or 2, or submitted. Acts proposition propositions 1901, ch. sec. 51. section is clear

By voting Constitutional The ballot have Amendments: should “For the (1) Consti- tutional Amendment” “Against Constitutional Amend- These two ment.” were to be expressions on the (2) same A in which the space provided ballot. voter is to (3) make his mark.

Now, if is clear in this anything case it is that the Legisla- Act 1904, by 2, ture 96, chap. intend so law, election far as the repeal submission of this is concerned. By section the vote ballot, and each ballot “shall there shall be zvritten ‘For the words printed or Constitutional Amendment,’ Amendment,’ Constitutional ‘Against as the voters shall elect.”

This a return to the old system voting and is copied from verbatim Article Constitution of Maryland, sub- Constitution,” on the title “Vote prescribing bow the Consti- was to be voted tution for.

The method differs from the method prescribed in the gen- election law as follows: Voter eral 1. may furnish the ballot ballot lie himself On the write or have printed “For “Against Constitutional Amendment” the Constitutional WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. 100

Argument of Counsel. Both these expressions cannot be on the Amendment.” 3. space No for square provided mark. ballot. same 4. not official. Ballot an Legislature proposes when the amendment to

Now, sec- 2 of the 'same in section Act provides special tion submission, different from entirely that contained method law, it cannot be that the successfully argued intend two sections did not to stand together, Legislature that in the maintained intention of the Legislature be cannot and the other fall. stand might section one Prentiss Poe whom Carter (with Bernard John. for the Miles on appellee. L. brief), Álcmzo Article is a clear um- plain, contention Our 14 whole for the subject amendments to provision ambiguous Constitution, distinctly, dealing separately specially its words and manifest subject—that plain that single with bemay that amendments proposed by the it provides intent thereby Senate and Assembly—meaning House vote three-fifths of acting by house all each Delegates, to it—that' each amendment shall be in elected members “bills” amendments are bill”—that “separate nature from very ordinary in their measures distinct wholly that, are not accordingly, they required of legislation, for executive consideration to the Governor be submitted but that when ordinary legislation, duly case inas of “bills” vote each prescribed in the shape passed order the Governor” in “shall published house, they and that in relation to prescribed, the period mode and for the only amendments billsproposing function is to order them to be published by the exercised by the adoption rejection people. as prescribed,for our contention all adjudicated find support We has where been question exception, onesingle voithout cases, v. Virginia, of these cases are Hollingsworth Some raised. 3 864; File Neb. Green In re Senate 381; Dallas S.) (U. 25 Stoneman, 66 Cal. 632; Hatch v. Weller, 650; Miss. v. VANDIVER. vs. Griest, Pa. Commonwealth v. Hill, 543; Ia. Koehler v. De Mason, see also 649; La. Ann. 590, State v. 396; St. Debates, Va. Conven 1820, Convention, 407; bates, p. Mass. tion, p. 1829, 887. considered in fully subject quite whole Jamison's and the view con- Conventions, secs. 556—565,

Constitutional correct, all and sustained us declared be tended for by the authorities. the bill Griest, Pa. St. in Rep.

In v. Commonwealth Pennsylvania pre- the uniform practice accordance with a and he vetoed it by pocket the veto. sented to Governor the bill was Mason, La. Ann. And in State v. it, he vetoed to the send- Governor like manner presented bill the in which the house originated. his veto message ing veto, but in the over Senate In that house it was passed the vote. not overcome by required his veto was cases, however, the Supreme In of these two Court each amendments to the held that bills Consti- the State like to be sent to Governor ordi- tution are required and that exec- measures of consequently nary legislation, ineffectual. utive veto was is one concede that question depending

We freely of our own the true meaning its solution upon of our are so Constitution we insist but with the provisions so identical meaning similar in terms and and of the several States United Constitution cited adjudications and passed upon considered States cannot fail be us, that these adjudications relied on by con- as conclusive questions this Court followed by here. troversy for the learned counsel appel-

The whole argument claim They in Article word “bill” is built lant upon the framers use of this word that by an it meant ordinary legislative who adopted people must could be bill, which, finally operative, go before it to the complete develop- the formalities requisite all through execu- including “Act” “law,” into a an a “bill” ment of WARFIELD vs. YANDIYER. five or due approval each passage the two over houses executive veto.

Now we well insist might very that a of this question char- acter cannot .properly settled what upon fairly criticism, mere treated as a verbal that must be deter- mined broad view of the upon object and effect of a proposal their people by representatives in the Legislature amend a consideration Constitution—upon of the intrinsic nature of such proceeding by two houses of the General the effect of the approval disapproval after what all obviously necessarily mere tentative proposal without people any operative unless ratified force whatever by them. at the in this question an

Looking light, founded argument on the effect almost of one exclusively word not might single be claimed to rest unreasonably upon too slender a founda- to be as we accepted tion sound. And insist that accordingly cannot be treated seriously. ft 2, Constitution, Art. sec. 17,

Under and Art. 3, sec. and indeed the only obvious was to make purpose the Gov- integral an and essential of ernor the law part making power State, as the of President of the precisely United is States of Indeed, the law making power of with the ex- Congress. of four lines of preliminary sec. Art. 11 ception (which 17 make serve to more that its to plain lines purpose was limit bills, to consideration which when executive him approved by veto, should over become passed section is laws.), from of sec. Art. 1 bodily taken 7 States. United

There is no Art. ofthe suggestion necessity executive 14 Assembly before General can even be approval permitted to the a in our to propose people change law. organic is', There on the a contrary, special requirement (found other vote no Art. that the to necessary Constitution), is a If such three-fifths vote. had been to proposal design to the Governor the to thwart the will of the Gen- power give them, consent, eral and to disable without his Assembly from vs. VANDIVER. an to the Constitu- to the Amendment people even proposing to in relation Amend- tion, is it not that the provision manifest peculiar would have been thus made special ments them, would have been to necessary vote propose to ordinary to regulations governing left be controlled house in a three-fifths vote each require legislation? Why was intended to first if the Governor’s approval instance vote in each house or if this same three-fifths be necessary, three- a overcome his veto? Why require required fifths vote twice ? houses, a three-fifths vote of each of the inasmuch as

Again, Assembly, required together which constitutes a Amend- of a measure Constitutional for the passage ment, to be as are contemplated pre- and as such measures for his before become to the approval sented Governor only require, of Art. and sec. laws veto, of the mem- of three-fifths for over his vote passage houses, be, what reason could there elected each of bers minds of the framers subjecting to the process Amendment being Constitutional of all for his sent to approval (independently same when the consideration applicable other subject), secure, instance, consent in the first vote required the two houses the General be re- as would to be submitted the people, veto of the action of to overcome a Governor by

quired Assembly? the two houses of the General is by covered subject wholly We must insist that stands, it when the Article declares as and that its framers and the people or bills” shall published, “bill words in their it meant what these precisely who adopted ordinary sense mean. natural and plain, or or laws amendment It does not the “law say proposing or amendments,” or the “Act or Acts proposing Governor, but amendments,” by shall be published or bills amendments.” “bill who adopted people framers VANDIVER. vs. [10Í

it knew the distinction and difference between a “bill” and a “law” or “Act.” knew a They well that perfectly measure of as legislation technical, well as ordinarily, called “bill,” until executive it has by approval into a ripened n “law” or an “Act.” When by the approved over veto to passed ceases “bill.” is no longer “bill,” called a has but into developed a “law” and is usually (cid:127)called Indeed, bill,” “An Act.” the word “a which precede every are proposed piece omitted it has legislation when all the passed through law, to make it steps necessary then Hence, it is “An Act.” we styled when find Art. di- the Governor to recting “the bill or publish bills proposing amendments,” see we that it clearly meant proposals passed the General Assembly by vote in specially designated house, each not treated as to be sub- legislation necessary to mitted the Governor in order “to guard against hasty but as partial legislation,” submitted to the proposals people by .their .in the Senate and House of representatives Delegates, and as to which the Governor has no function whatever to them. He perform is the chosen except ministe- publish rial officer to order them be for the information published inasmuch do not people, they constitute legisla- tion, which his would make do approval so operative, not and cannot constitute which legislation his veto ob- struct defeat. is, therefore, the face of Art.

Upon that the apparent claim that the made Governor’s concurrence in proposals from the General amend the Constitution passed each house exacted vote of three-fifths of specially members, their elected cannot be respectively, necessary, sustained of that by any interpretation Article. proper

In Court below was made that two suggestion consideration, bills now under in addition out the setting in the form prescribed Amendments directing a section contained should be Assembly, thfey submitted and that this made them people, provision more than bills mere outside of executive something power, VANDIVER. vs. to within area subject and them legislation brought revision Governor. was this but as put upon

No stress apparently suggestion; here it be to notice may proper again presented submit, found, will be we that there is no such ad- point. matter of in bills. legislation ditional were, introduction could But if there its not invalidate and amendments formu- complete perfect proposed properly in each bill. lated separate utile maxim of inutile non The well-established vitiatur per such in view and distinctly applicable controlling. would of a of Art. only requirement But sec. repetition and, moreover, as learned of the Judges Court below well mode of say, their con- submitting proposed opinion to the stitutional amendments people already abundantly for in our election law provided (Code, 33), total failure make provision hence a submission any would not at a vote of on the bills all affect their people validity. counsel for the fact since the appellant point of our there have been proposed

adoption present Constitution, and amendments to the about eighteen were submitted one these cases the “bills” every on and made "Acts" approval, they rely their as a conten this strong argument support practice Louisiana; but a was fact Pennsylvania tion. Such interpretation mere even a Consti legislative practice Greist, held in v. the two cases Commonwealth tution Mason, Ann. and State v. La. supra, Pa. St. 396, not to be control the ground judgment sufficient supra; here, so, in a silent plainly And acquiescence the Court. of the Constitution cannot lead construction erroneous error on a never heretofore question an perpetuate Court raised. details the mode of proposing adopt-

In the regulating so far as the variety; there is some orig- amendments ing absolute exclusive them and the power ination of vs. VANDIVER. WARFIELD 106 two branches of the over them are concerned Legislature there is a to which we find striking impressive uniformity, now one exception.

Thus in Delaware: Assembly, The General whenever two- thirds of deem it each house shall with the necessary, appro- Governor, bation may propose. of And in Louisiana Constitution ap- (under 1845), proval Governor to all proposals amendment the “General was but in the Assembly” successive required; of 1852, Constitutions provision 1864 omitted, it is omitted also in the aud of 1875; and the is that “the now General language Assembly may propose,” etc.

The Constitution of Delaware and that of Louisiana of 1845 are the cases in which the has only Governor approval ever been required.

In other instance there seems to have been every a clear and unmistakable to exclude from purpose par- ticipation proposals amend Constitution. Missouri may “The General (1820—also 1875): ” Leuser,

at time amendments any propose Edwards v. 132 Miss. Alabama: “The General whenever Assembly, 433. house, etc., of each two-thirds Arkansas may propose.” etc., “The General (1836): Assembly, may propose.” (1868): “Either branch of the General Illi Assembly may-propose.” nois “Whenever two-thirds the General Assembly, (1818): etc.” “Whenever two-thirds of all the (1848 1870): members elected to each branch the General Assembly,” etc., etc. Kansas “All for amendments propositions (1885): shall be made Assembly.” Prohibitory Amend Cases, ment Kan. Rhode Island “The Gen (1842): 24 700. eral Assembly may amendments.” Texas propose (1845, 1866, 1868, “The two-thirds Legislature, when of each 1876): house deem shall it necessary, Nebraska: may propose.” “Either branch may amendments.” Legislature propose In re File Senate Neb. Iowa: amendment “Any 864. or amendments in either house of proposed Gen- VANDIVER. vs. Counsel. Argument of Iowa, Hill, Mississippi: Koehler v. eral Assembly.” 543. of the Legislature branch each “Whenever two-thircls to this necessary alteration or deem change, any Weller, v. Green etc.” change, such amendment may “Any California Miss. (1849): “If at any or Assembly.” (1862): in the Senate Hatch v. etc.” Assembly, time two-thirds Senate Co., Cal. Paving v. Stoneman, Oakland 532; 66 Cal. 514. 69 in either house bemay proposed Colorado: “Any Col. Assembly.” People, Nesbit v. of the General 441. 19 ” house, Georgia: etc. in either be Florida: “May proposed several on three each house three times in bill read “By branch either in be “May Indiana proposed days.” (1851!: “May Assembly.” Michigan 1850): of the General (1835, Min of in the or House Represetatives.” be Senate proposed of houses of both a majority nesota “Whenever (1837): etc., such alterations propose Legislature, laws. be with the amendments which shall published Julius be Callahan, “May pro Minn. Nevada v. (1864): 154. Davis, v. 20 Nev. or State Assembly.” in Senate posed in the Senate “May New be Jersey proposed 220. (1844): Same or York General New Assembly.” (1821 1846): “By North substantially as New Carolina Jersey. (1868): house,” University v. bill times in State read three each etc. “Either branch of McIver, N. Ohio Car. (1851): be Assembly may “May General propose.” Oregon (1857): ” of Assembly. Pennsyl in either branch the General proposed Griest, in Commonwealth v. Penn. St. vania: stated Fully of “No part South Carolina (1790 396, supra. 1865): alter the same this Constitution shall be altered unless a bill to three been read three times in House and times shall have in Senate, the Senate “May etc.” be proposed (1868): or House Tennessee Representatives.” “May (1834—1870): Vir be in Senate House Representatives.” proposed be in or House of Del Senate ginia (1870): “May proposed ” next West Assembly. and ratified General Vir egates ratified, house and ginia other “May (1872): WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. Opinion of the Court. etc.” Wisconsin: in either “May house and rat- ified, etc.” Massachusetts “Provision for taking (1780): sense of the a under call to be made people Court New as in Hampshire “Substantially (1792): 1795.” Massachusetts.” Kentucky majority “When á (1850); each house concur law for the passing calling convention, etc.” C. J., delivered opinion Court.

McSherry, March, In Maryland by three-fifths vote of all the members elected to each the two houses two adopted proposed amendments to the State Con- stitution. One was to amend sec. one of Art. proposition one franchise; the elective relating and the other was a three, to amend proposition section thirty-four Article is known as the roads amendment. Neither of these good proposed amendments was submitted to the Governor for both, approval certified disapproval, duly pre- officers of the two houses siding Secretary Senate and the of the of were, Chief Clerk House Delegates, to obedience a resolution the Senate the passed by placed of custody the Clerk of the Court Thereafter the Appeals. Governor which, sent a to the Senate in message amongst other his stated that he did things, Excellency not approve the elective amendment, franchise as it had been not presented himto for his or if could not approval disapproval, be lawfully submitted to the of the for qualified voters State their or He his to adoption expressed rejection. willingness the roads amendment. made the sign good being duty the under of the Constitution to order the Governor Art. 14 bill publication of the or bills an amendment or for amendments, at least three months the next ensu- preceding election at which amendment is to ing be general any proposed submitted to the for or voters State qualified adoption the Vandiver addressed to his Excel- rejection; Hon. Murray a letter on November the nineteen hun- twenty-second, lency four, him the entertained, dred whether he asking opinion m. VANDIVER. Opinion Court. could a to amend the Constitution the effect that proposal to his until it received approval be submitted to people not over the General Assembly until it had been adopted by or veto, to cause the franchiseand lead him refuse his would to be amendments roads published prior good hundred and five. In Governor reply election nineteen Constitu- “I will not cause be published stated: * * because have not been amendments referred to tional and hence are me my submitted to approval the thirtieth Vandiver Mr. On November operative.” Anne Arundel County filed in the Court for petition Circuit of manda- therein that a writ the Governor and prayed against the two him publish pro- mus be issued might commanding of Art. with the requirements amendments accordance posed was filed To this an answer Constitution. petition answer save No issues are raised the Governor. to amend the one as whether proposition single from the As- Constitution, duly General emanating though Executive, passed must sembly, approved to the vote of the veto, peo- submitted being over before mandamus to issue and ordered the The Circuit Court ple. to this Court. has respondent appealed is this: Does a pro- The and fundamental question primary been after adopted amend having posal accordance with the Executive, it be must require approval it, if are veto he before people over his disapproves passed second it? There and subordinate entitled to vote upon stated and discussed later on. which will be inquiry with marked before the ability case was eight argued and after mature deliberation we all agree of this Court Judges amend the Constitution when formulated that a to proposition in the manner and Assembly prescribed by, the by General Article contained in and requirements according and essentially leg- no measures which are distinctively when it, the require nature are does not appended islative in their be on the before it can voted of the Governor approval WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. Opinion of the Court. and the Governor has no people; authority whatever it. The conclusion veto stated rea- just sustained both authority. son and much the

As discussion will on the em- hinge language in article, Article in so far as it the ployed relates to will be questions, now pending transcribed. The “Section 1. may General amendments to propose this Constitu- that each amendment tion; shall be in provided, embraced a bill, the article embodying section, or separate as the same amended will when and passed stand by three-fifths all the houses, elected to each of the members two and yeas nays, on journals to be entered with the amendments. bills The bill or proposing amendment or amendments shall order of Governor, be in at least two news- published, in each where so county, many and papers published more than one bemay where'-not published then that news- in three newspapers published paper, city Balti- which more, one of shall be the German once language, least week at three months the next preceding ensuing election, at which the proposed amendment amend- submitted shall be in a form to ments prescribed by Assembly, voters of qualified the State for rejection.” adoption remaining provisions of the refer the duties of the section Governor with respect the results of an election after the votes proclaiming cast for amendment have been returned to against him. it is contended that part appellee Upon term as used in the Assembly,” above-cited “General section, two houses of means only Senate Legislature—the of Delegates; the House whereas on behalf of the appel- is insisted that the term signifies lant it General Assem- its of which organic capacity, bly part. Assembly may amendments to propose “The General this Con- the term “General Unless stitution.” Assembly” wherever used in Constitution universally invariably includes Executive, it cannot vigore, it, be affirmed that proprio more, without necessity embraces him when employed vs. VANDIVER.. Ill Opinion of Court. M<1.] the term never that must first be established in Article It it always of it that it before can be predicated excludes him of Now, the Constitution even a casual reading includes him. “General in addition words that will show something term the Gov- to include under that is Assembly” requisite three of the Constitu- of Article section one In fact ernor. “The reads thus: Assembly. term General defines the tion distinct branches—a Senate consist two shall Legislature the General shall be styled of Delegates—and and a House as to declaration This constitutional Assembly Maryland." make the General factors up or component what constituents this is not But the Governor. excludes Assembly explicitly three Article provides fourteen of same all. Section Wednesday meet on the first shall Assembly “The General same second day every year and on the January, time, unless convened by at no other proclama- thereafter and that “The Governor.” fifteen tion of the Section declares etc.; continue its sessions so long,” Assembly General that “The General Assembly section twenty-four provides thereof, create, com- standing at session every joint shall shall and House who have Delegates, Senate mittee oath, and examine them on to send for power persons records, etc.” Section or official public papers call Article four declares that: shall be re- “Any Judge four of * * * on the moved from office the Governor address Here, then, etc.” arc several in- Assembly, General stances, there a number of others that are quite might mentioned, General spoken in which the Executive; distinct from the and hence demonstrably wholly does not of itself that the term “General Assembly” follows words In other the Governor. or implicitly comprehend House of of the Senate and General Assembly, composed the concurrence exercise some without Delegates, may powers it, therefore, when Governor; and, or co-operation per- authorized the Constitution Assembly, necessary function there is no in- form involved designated in order the Governor therein ference participate the- action potency. Ilegislature’s fhn WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER.

Opinion of the Court. If we one farther and go examine the step phraseology in contrast with constitutions of this prior State, will become that Governor has to do apparent nothing awith proposed Constitutional Amendment to order except its for the and in the manner publication period designated that article and to its it proclaim after has been adoption ap- proved by the Under the Constitution of people. 1776 method of its provisions was an Act of amending by Assembly at one session and passed Governor, who then signed by had no veto and who was affix his power required to signa- ture to all enactments adopted by Législature; publi- election, cation of that Act before the next but no vote general it by the its ratification people, by succeeding General Amendments thus Assembly. framed needed the but not the signature, approval, Executive, because it was made all imperative duty sign extent, Acts with To that no discretion Legislature. whatever, he and in participated propounding adopting amendments of the law. He had no to with- organic power hold his from amendments. signature any proposed By Constitution of 1851, which was the second one adopted its Maryland, could have been amended only aby convention assembled for to Art. pursuant that purpose The Governor was no veto given power. The Constitution of contained two modes which could amendments 1864 made, both of which were contained in Art. 11. sec. 1 By of that Art. it was declared that the “General Assembly may any which shall propose three- agreed fifths all the members elected to both sec- houses.” The tion then required amendment to be published to be subsequently voted on at qualified electors the next By election. second section amendments were to be made a permitted by convention convened for that but before

purpose any amendment so could be- come it three, effective necessary, was under section that it should be vote adopted the Con- people. Under stitution of the Governor had no veto In not power. 1864 vs. VANDIVER. 113 Opinion of the Court. had the under instance the Constitutions of single any whatever authority to veto a pro- law; to amend the and was until posal organic not the Con- stitution of went into effect that “to guard against hasty not legislation}' hasty partial amendments to partial Constitution, the Executive clothed with a veto power. to and

Upon reading Art. must turning be conceded clear; its language explicit unambiguous. does- the General say Assembly Governor, or the with the Assembly approval the Governor, but “The General amendments to this propose Con- stitution, that each amendment provided, shall be embraced in bill, etc.” Such a is not separate proposal legislation. It is to be “three-fifths passed by of all required the members houses,” to each of the elected two whilst'a is majority only for the measures; needed adoption legislative and even after the number of votes prescribed in both it receiving houses con- law, bill to be a and never tinues becomes a if though adopted by the vote it is thereafter people incorporated the Con- “The bill or bills stitution. or proposing amendment amend- ments shall be the order of Governor, published by etc.” The to be is a bill thing published an amendment. Now, whatever a legislation Governor has to right sign and does ceases when sign, him, to signed by be a bill and a There becomes law. are three ways which a bill may First, become a law. being signed by Governor; sec- ondly, by veto; over and being passed thirdly, by his fail- to return the bill six days ure within after it, receiving unless by adjournment the General Assembly its prevents return.. To this more clear it not make be amiss to quote sec. 17 is Art. two the Constitution. in these words : “To against guard hasty partial legislation and encroachments of legislative department upon co-ordinate executive bill judicial departments, every which have passed becomes, shall, the House of Delegates Senate before it law to Governor of the if presented State; he approve it, he shall but if not he shall return with his sign it objections. vol. vs. VANDIVER.

114' Opinion of the Court. it to the house in which which shall enter originated, house at on its objections to recon- large journal proceed .if, bill; reconsideration, sider the after such three-fifths bill, members elected to that house shall pass the it sent shall be with the other objections house shall like- which reconsidered, if it wise be mem- pass by three-fifths of the * * * house, it shall bers elected become a law If any bill shall not be returned Governor within days six after it shall have been presented (Sundays excepted) in like him, the same shall be law manner if he signed shall, it, unless General- by adjournment, pre- * * return, in which it shall its case not be a vent law- a bill and a law is distinction between maintained' carefully section; and the and clear aforegoing plain throughout of the section make that it morally certain has Constitutional no toa Amendment. This application law thirty "organic except only provision section three, authority the Governor which confers of Article If a amend Constitu- proposal veto bill. to sign sections, of those then Article either embraced by tion its them; and as terms do not include is unaffected a measure veto approve he has no power the Governor which the Governor has to The right under it. propounded to bills which when confined signed, is strictly to veto sign-or veto, the the vote over requisite vetoed, when passed ifor to whether a Hence, the test as particular laws. become is one which the General adopted measure it is the fací that when efficacy, to give must sign Governor in virtue of a being and becomes, signed, at once it signed * * * . bill “Every to be a bill. ceases thereupon and law Governor, to the law, be presented a it becomes shall, before law. he does not If it, become it will sign he If etc.” three-fifths vote it aby two houses pass it, and approve then, Obviously, a law. become it will veto also- his over or authority to sign has the Governor which measures when, over his passed signed, as when such veto, only are to the amendment an proposing bill A laws. become veto VANDIVER, vs. Opinion of the Court. M(L] and more, would not become nothing a law if the Governor nor would it signed by become a law if passed veto; vote over his by three-fifths because it is to required submitted their people adoption rejection; and not until it shall that a appear majority of the votes cast at on such are in favor polls thereof can that it has been proclaim “adopted by the people Cojistitution.” as Maryland part It is not operative unless is mere adopted by people—it to amend proposal until sanctioned and by them; when their votes adopted by it becomes, not a law in the sense which that word is used in ” but a “part Constitution. To hold situation, would to otherwise lead an anomalous for if the bill an amendment must be signed Governor be- fore submitted to a vote of the being then the people, moment him, becomes, it signed by under ij, lawa the incidents with all and which consequences that term car- ries and conveys, fact notwithstanding is wholly aas law or in inoperative anyrither unless way and until by the adopted people. are the source of people power. who they make constitutions, written abrogate when in the organic

law which have chosen for they themselves they have desig- nated the Assembly, of a consisting Senate and a more, House Delegates to nothing be the agency for to .Constitution; amendments no propounding Executive has the between that. right step agency the people themselves say that without approval shall not their views on permitted measures express amendatory law. Unless the organic express Con- language stitution has clothed the unequivocally Governor with such an relation to authority, Constitutional Amend- Delaware, ments, is the case but in no other State, it borrowed from some other provision cannot be pertaining Whilst the subject. different Governor is entrusted wholly protect people against hasty with he power legislation, to them is not themselvesin guard against given prerogative WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. 116

Opinion of Court. is not law. He amending organic superior the matter of is not his will which he must to them. It their obey—it will which must subserve. of the and sub-division

Article is a distinct separate deals, section, first with the exclusively in its Constitution. has no relation of amending Constitution process in other arti- The other provisions whatever to legislation. to law has been made are confined to which allusion cles is restricted Constitution article making; making—this in in location and widely'disconnected are subjects the two substance. other amendments heretofore propounded

The fact that and have been Gov- signed submitted to have been of the in Con- translating of no ernor is weight stated, to the of Constitution already prior As stitution. was made under Art. the Con- amendment 1851, every yp of 60, which, Art. an of under stitution Act of 1776 amendments were No sign. the Governor was obliged but was of abrogated made to Constitution 1864. that of was superseded by The Constitution 1867. of the latter was Between first amendment of the the last date had and though no amendments been adopted, the year 1874 mate- had the interim undergone the method amending hav- not at all strange practice rial was changes, it do bill, he had been required sign ing should have been continued of 1776, under the Constitution as no of 1867, especially question under the Constitution matter, being signature, in regard ever raised act, do no harm. could nugatory where the of the President right In every jurisdiction, of the Governor a State sign States United drawn constitutional amendment has been veto a proposed denied the Court’s single exception,' have,([without question, By second paragraph of such a right. the existence that, Federal Constitution it provided the House of shall have passed Represen- bill which “Every VANDIVER. vs. Opinion of Court. law, Senate, shall, It becomes be pre before and the tatives States; if he he approve United to the President sented the same practically section continues it,” and the shall sign 2, of sec. ij, Maryland contained as those terms of is in these The concluding paragraph Constitution. to which the order, or vote concur resolution “Every words: of be nec may and House Representatives of the Senate rence shall be of adjournment) pre on a question essary (except States; and before the of the United the President sented to him, effect, or dis by shall approved being shall take same him, two-thirds of the repassed shall be Sen by approved to the rules and according of Representatives, and House ate in the case a bill.” Art. declares that prescribed limitations of both houses shall whenever two-thirds “The Congress, amendments to this Consti shall necessary, propose deem to the tution, The Third States Congress proposed etc.” 5th, on 8th September on the Amendment Eleventh in a to message the President de Congress of January, 1798, been ratified. Annotated amendment had Con. clared that the that was provided the amendment By “Judicial States shall not be construed extend to United power or suit in law or commenced equity, prosecuted to against any State, citizens of the United another or one of States In state.” foreign or subjects any Hollingsworth v. citizens Dall, arose whether the Eleventh question Virginia, 3 jurisdiction of the Federal Amendment Courts destroyed and which were to which it at the applied pending in cases It was contended that the of its adoption. time in the form not been had Consti prescribed had that it never appeared tution and void. been sub the President and it approval, mitted to was argued it was because Constitution declares that inoperative order, or to resolution vote which concurrence of “every the Senate House Representatives be neces * * * * * * shall be presented President sary effect, before the same shall take be approved by him, him, shall be disapproved by two- being passed by Warfield vandiver. vs. Opinion of the Court. thirds the Senate House of The Representatives.” Lee, was about Attorney-General, Mr. this reply argu- ment when he was interrupted by with Mr. Chase Justice n statement; can no “There surely necessity answer the President argument. negative applies only He has ordinary cases to do with legislation. nothing adoption amendments the Constitu- proposition tion.” day Supreme On Court delivered following that the amendment unanimous had been constitu- judgment tionally adopted. Thirteenth to the

The Amendment Federal Constitution n President, inadvertence submitted to the but it when was learned that this had been done a resolution was intro- in the Senate duced such was im- asserting presentation it to be so proper unnecessary declared ought it not in order that thereafter treated as a might precedent. late Reverdy The Mr. the reso- strongly supported Johnson lution, which was adopted. we are precise question now has been discussing de Governor,

cided to the contention adversely of the Court in Supreme Commonwealth, ex Pennsylvania rel. Griest, c., v. Elkins Penn. s. 868; L. R. A. 396; 196 50 Court of Supreme State, Louisiana in The ex rel. Morris Mason, La. An. v. Nebraska in case of Re Senate 590; 43 File Neb. See also Green Welker, v. Miss. 25 32 Hill, Keohler v. Stoneman, Ia. Hatch v. Cal. 650; 543; Conv., et Con. seq. 632; Jamison's The Pennsylvania and elaborate, Louisiana cases are full able discussions of exceedingly In both of subject. those cases the proposed amendment had been submitted to vetoed, Governor and had been but had been passed over the veto; each a yet was ordered to mandamus issue requiring publication measures. Under Constitution of is Pennsylvania provision made in Art. 18 for amendments to law. In the course organic its luminous judgment Court of Supreme that State in Penn, said: “It be will observed that the ip6 method creat- VANDIVER.

WARFIELD vs. Opinion the Court. for provided is fully amendments Constitution ing a separate Constitution. existing this article article, alone and unconnected entirely independent standing reference to any does contain subject. other Nor any with or to Constitution as needed being other of the any provision work to which the 18th out the particular used in carrying itself; entirely complete It is a system devoted. Article in matters of or of no aid either detail extraneous requiring It is also necessary its execution. effectual scope, for which it of the work pro- bear in mind the character of all is a concentration making; vides. It is law organic of the people establishing the power that, ‘if such the article Commonwealth; for it is provided by aby majority or amendments be approved thereon, amendments such amendment or those voting It is not law mak- shall become Constitution.’ part function, it is a a distinct spe- which is and separate ing, its of a to make Constitu- exercise power people cific ” the successive then proceeds tion. The Court point'out an must be in and which taken originating perfecting steps the several stages We : “These are quote amendment. again of A the to create an amendment. proposal in proceedings house; by an the same the amendment either agreement of the houses; the publication Secretary a thereof by both houses; the two a Commonwealth; a second agreement of vote Secretary; people, a publication second amendment which, causes the favorably, if a vote majority In the and orderly logical a of Constitution. become part facts, follows, it with apparently of such sequence preceding thus that an amendment originated, an unanswerable certainty, with, terminated, part an óí integral and becomes proceeded are strikingly These observations our State Constitution.’’ our of Constitu- case at bar. Article By to the apposite be com- other, must and no requirements the following, tion the General A an amendment with: plied proposal bill; three-fifths of form its passage by of a Assembly vote and yea nay elected each house aby the members all WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. Opinion of the Court. to bé recorded on the journal; entry of the amendment on the journal; publication the bill order of the Governor for an least three months before the next a election; vote of the and if a people, majority of the cast thereon are votes favorable to its a adoption, the Governor proclamation by the amendment to declaring have been “and adopted, thenceforth said amendment or shall be amendments part said a Constitution.” Not word or a syllable to be found of these any even that the Governor is entitled suggesting participate, any inway, and formulating proposing amendments Con- stitution. n case, In the Louisiana it supra, was contended in behalf State, who had Secretary refused to publish pro- amendment, that he was posed not be- it obliged publish cause it had never law, force and acquired effect of inas- much as had been vetoed by the Governor and had failedto over the veto. In pass with that dealing proposition Mr. said—and Court point Waticins n Justióe “It unanimous: be at once conceded that lnever amendment acquired law, force effect not, however, never become law ; as a operative because the measure House Bill did represented by not receive the Executive; sanction and approval because failed veto, .to over the as the Constitution pass required by State, returns, of this laws but because respondent Article Constitution declares proposition 256th for the the Constitution shall be submitted to the electors for their if rejection, and approval majority amendment, same, on said shall .voting ratify the approve then such amendments constitute approved ratified the The Constitution. amendment is a part of until merely, and ratified the votes of proposition approved State, of the of the electors cast at an election for majority and when so and ratified it consti- representatives; approved of law—but a the It is part tutes—not Constitution. per- then, manifest, that neither the of the signature Gov- fectly WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. Opinion the of Court. measure,

ernor the nor the of the same by approving passage the houses of the two-thirds of respective Assembly it, in manner or any could affect Neither any way degree. nor could the the one the other the force and give proposition then effect law.” Court turned its attention the of the Constitution, contention that Art. Louisiana which contained in provisions combines sec. Art. 30, 3, sec. 2, Constitution, Art. of our 13, that Art. which 75, almost a literal of the third transcript paragraph Constitution, Federal conferred Executive veto the authority proposed amendment; this is the summary which way matter: “Each of disposed articles these relates to duties of the executive in respect State,’ to his or approval disapproval ordinary ‘Acts of resolves of the General respect their becoming and effective as laws without operative by the elect- ratification law, But Article ors. same under the organic ‘Amendment and Revision of the heading Constitution,’ con- but one fides to Executive trust and him imposes upon “The but one result duty. says: of said is, election—that at the election which a proposed constitutional amendment is

submitted to electors for their ratification rejection— be made known by proclamation of the Governor. of a This delegation single, specific duty respect to such would seem under rules proposition ordinary construction * * * to exclude other every Our . conclusion is that the Governor signature to the proposition for the (cid:127) Constitution under discussion is not re and that quired by of it did disapproval its not affect validity.”

needWe prolong opinion by further citations from cases and we will now adjudged proceed to note and consider the second or subordinate which in inquiry the outset we stated would with dealt later on. That is this: inquiry Does second section of the franchise amendment bill con- distinct tain legislative which to be effective require signature Governor? A of us majority are ofopin- WARFIELD m VANDIVER. (cid:127)

Opinion the Court. ion the sec- that it does not: all of us second agree whilst tion of the contains no roads amendment bill good the needing Governor’s approval. bill

The of the franchise amendment is second section enacted, That the these “And be further foregoing words: section, an to the Constitu- hereby proposed State, be, tion of shall at the next election State, members to be held in this of the General for their submitted to the and voters thereof legal qualified contained or the directions adoption rejection, pursuance on vote of the and at said election the each ballot, said amendment shall be by words, “For ballot shall be written printed there Amendment,” or the Constitutional Constitutional “Against Amendment,” elect; shall after immediately as the voters said due shall be made to election returns amendment, the said as directed vote on said proposed Now, it cannot be Article of the pretended Constitution.” 14th submitted to the amendment to be that the directing clause the next general voters of the State at legal qualified is distinctively Assembly, election for members the Governor’s requiring provision essentially legislative shall prescribes what Art. because it approval, precisely from the omitted be if clause had been done; entirely been would have operative, section the mandate Constitutional require- effective, in this Nor as it still is particular. amendment shall be ment that vote on the proposed -itself enactment, because the Constitution ballot a legislative ballot.” 1, “all elections shall declares that see. Art. election, due returns after the immediately The direction that Governor, is repetition simply to the shall made the same thing identically under which terms of Art. silent section had been altogether done if the would have been elect',' refers, “as voters shall subject. phrase, on the immediate antecedent—not to the but remote “For” or “Against”—be- “written orprinted]' ballot, and', do with making has nothing cause voter WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. Opinion of the Court

Md. ] therefore, it is for him to elect whether words impossible Hence, be written thereon. printed necessity, must mean that is phrase which precisely implied included equally comprehensive provisions law; general assumed, unless either that the General Assembly pur intended to mislead and confuse the posely voters by inserting, a clause in conflict with the then law; or, existing general that the General to Assembly the then obviously designed repeal law in this existing general and to particular substitute a differ ent in its stead. No middle or provision intermediate atti other, tude exists. Either one or neither, or of the two alternatives just indicated must be accepted. “Comity for a co-ordinate branch of the proper respect government.” &c., etc., Board, (Mayor, v. Md. forbid the adoption 475), ofan which to hypothesis the General imputes Assembly such an motive as the first of unworthy the two alternatives in cludes; and that must alternative be rejected. There was ob no viously intention to law, repeal general because the roads passing amendment con good with the franchise currently were both amendment—they the house on adopted by tenth, March 1904—expressly in voked and reaffirmed the general law; and it cannot with pro be said as priety to one amendment the law was to whilst as to govern, the other a different totally system to prevail. specific affirmance of the general law in the second section of the good roads amendment excludes the idea that the General Assembly designed that law repeal the second section of the amendment, franchise for it can not be there was an presumed intention to have two different methods in at the same' operation time. Neither alternative can, therefore, be invoked. As the voters shall elect will vote or against amendment. This is what the phrase for means and in accord exactly with what the Code pre scribes. Sec. 56, 33, Code of 202, ch. 18^6, {Acts sec. 51; ch. enacts; “If at any election there 2), be a * * * constitutional question to be submitted to the vote, popular said shall be question placed said bal- WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER.

Opinion of the Court. Amendment,’ lot in the form ‘For Constitutional following: * * * said re- Amendment,’ Constitutional ‘Against column, as hereinbe- shall be questions placed spective mentioned, that the same shall form a parellelogram, fore so here- way indicate clearly where the voter may space Code out” secs. inafter pointed (? igof\ ) [in wish his ballot “whether he to cast against shall ” ** As voter Constitutional Amendment wish, terms or ex- elect, he shall are and whether equivalent so “Ballots shall be printed Secs. declare: pressions. 5‡ each voter a clear designate give opportunity * * * each at right a cross square (X) * * * such questions.” answer question of some clear from this brief examination the shall the “as voters phrase the election laws that general with clause is and effect the in meaning elect” identical from the Eliminat- just he wish” cited Code. “whether shall the all from the of franchise amendment second section ing considered, but the direc- remains the terms thus far nothing each ballot there shall in the words upon tion contained “and words, the Constitutional written or the ‘For printed Amendment.” Amendment, the Constitutional or Against italicised, words, such an these which we have embody Do with- enactment as to be inoperative unquestionable legislative defeat, do reason the and they out Governor’s approval; the As- of that of absence approval, design with amendment sembly submitting respect answer A of Court to the vote of the people? majority and thus answer it for the inquiry negative, reasons. following in section two of or departure, departure, apparent amendment, from the of requirements franchise is in the “written and law, found words election orf “Constitutional,” and between “For” and word “the”

in the “Constitutional,” and “Against” word “the" between same and “Amendment” in the word “or" between finally or shall be written each ballot there “Upon “Against.” VANDIVER, vs. Opinion of the Court. lan- words, This is in alternative. The etc.” printed of which is a transcript Code 56, 33, Art. 1904, guage 202, to Code ch. Sup. of sec. Art. 31, 33, (Act 1896, part shall be is, ch. “the said question placed Act 2), 1901, written the form If there ballot in etc.” following, said if it there; and there would be printed it would be placed ’ that there shall be written the direction there. As placed indicated, alternative, the words on the ballot printed both cannot be written printed; words the designated of the Act instance in which since adoption in every 202, Act ch. an amend- and the prior 338, ch. 1890, 1896, has submitted and been adopted, question has been ment thereon, notwithstanding on the ballot by being printed placed amendments, bills sections of the various the second ch. words “written contained the printed,” 194; 1890, (1890, ch, 183; ch. ch. 313; ch. 242; 1900, 1890, 1892, 1900, 193; as settled regarded ch. bemay ch. 432; 1900, 469), bal- the amendment on alternative method placing follow; one to the appropriate especially lot by printing Code 33, of sec. and sec. view of requirements ** * “a to the effect that constitutional immediately column to follow printed separate names of the after the candidates.” “For article “the" where occurs the phrases

Surely the Constitu- Amendment” “Against the Constitutional Amendment,” when the terms used law general tional Amendment,” Constitutional “Against are “For Constitutional Amendment,” such distinct can not be said import as to the signature feature legislation require obvious “For The term the measure validity. the give is the term“For Amendment” identical with the Constitutional where it “or" disjunctive The Amendment.” Constitutional Amend- “For the occurs between the Constitutional phrases Amendment,” simply ment” or the Constitutional “Against the is to both terms must be on printed and—that means say, from section two of the franchise amend- ballot. Prescinding which the itself supplies; ment the Constitution WARFIELD -os.VANDIVER. Opinion of the Court. in that there is the of the sec- remaining requirements finding that is not in accord and nothing harmony tion with complete Code, contained the now, enactments both and at existing time the General Assembly amendments; is, in embodied in that reality, second there section nothing which requires whatever signature approval Gov- the fact that he did not ernor; and the bills sign cannot de- vote for or people right prive against pro- amendments. posed two of the roads bill good

Section is in the be it “And further enacted following language: the au- aforesaid, section aforegoing thority hereby proposed be, amendment to Constitution shall an at the as next State, election held submitted to the general legal thereof for their voters adoption rejection, qualified pur- of the directions contained in Article suance of the Con- State, of this and at the said stitution election the vote amendment to the said on shall be by ballot, each ballot shall be printed the words: “For Amendment” and “Against Constitutional Constitutional as Amendment,” law, now prescribed by and immediately election due return shall be after said made to the Governor, for and said vote against proposed Amendment as fourteenth said Article directed Constitution.” This is different from that slightly used in the phraseology other of it bill, is the legal import same. two are sub- similar. stantially

There another view of the subject which was discussed ard considered in at Bar the briefs. And it is this: Ar- only ticle gives Assembly, defined in sec. Art. heretofore the sole j, quoted, and exclusive au- amendments to the thority propose Constitution, but it fur- terms, ther, emphatic equally declares that the proposed shall be in a “amendments submitted to be prescribed by form means, Assembly.” the General Obviously this according the contention that the appellee, same which body amendments may also propose prescribe form, that is the VANDIVER.

WARFIELD vs. Dissenting Opinion by Boyd, J. two submitted; section shall be method, in which they th,e than does more nothing prescribe amendment franchise vote the amendment to form for the submission on the other we have reached conclusion But as the people. case, of the is decisive controversy of the of this feature branch last the contention pass deem it necessary we do not observation, had that section add this to. We may alluded out, the omitted, now stricken or if were two been wholly needed the details and machinery would all Code supply ballot next general on the official at the amendment place election. First, that a we have reached are: proposal

The conclusions does not need the pure simple, to amend the to veto he has authority and that no the Governor approval of us hold Secondly, majority To this we all agree. it. of the in the second section franchise there is that nothing Thirdly, the Governor’s requiring approval. roads amendment contains second section of the good this we all To the Governor’s sanction. needing nothing must against the order Fourthly, appealed agree. must issue as mandamus prayed.

affirmed and that the above and with costs Order affirmed below. 23rd, 1905.)

(Decided March Boyd, dissented delivered following opinion J., Schmucker, concurred. which Pearce JJ. relieves in this case the Chief filed Judge

The opinion of as what is therein spoken of the necessity discussing me I only and fundamental because question,” “The primary to that able very opinion, anything cannot add importance on that the members the Court are unanimous but as case, de- it would be useless to do As the so. branch which settles the question concerning cision majority differed, as had been 11s as if the Court effectually some of dis- that, my 1 would not do more than note unanimous sent, to state more distinctly did I not deem proper fully WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER.

Dissenting Opinion by Boyd, J. differed, the on points which we reasons for con- my the clusion I reached.

What is called the “subordinate” is thus inquiry stated in that “Does the second opinion: section of the franchise bill amendment contain distinct which, legislative provisions to effective, be the require signature Governor?” IWhile may confine to strictly an answer myself to that inquiry, is sufficiently to indicate the main comprehensive upon point which we Of course I differed. assume that the Chief Judge, in the above intended to include the inquiry, other ways pro- vided the by which a law be enacted by the without the Legislature signature of the Governor—pass- ing veto, over or the Governor’s to within failure act the time elsewhere referred prescribed—as to his opinion. I do to not understand one if any a bill of deny the Gen- eral an Assembly amendment proposing Constitution contains which can be said be provisions fairly legislation, such cannot be effective unless provisions submitted the All of the Governor. authorities on the subject that I am view, course, aware of concur in that unless, of there be some ain constitution special provision that would make it unnec- about essary, any it has controversy usually arisen from difference as to whether opinions certain provisions amount to legislation.

The title this bill is “An to amend sec- question Act tion i of i State, Article and to this submission said provide qualified for for or adoption rejection.” voters State The latter intended to follow the of section I of part bill, which says bills, of the Constitution “the or amendment, amendments, or shall be order of published by * * * once a at week for least three election, the next months at which ensuing general preceding amendment, amendments, said shall be sub- proposed mitted, in a Assembly, General to- prescribed form voters State qualified adoption rejection.” 2 of this bill it is section provided In WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. Dissenting Opinion by Boyd, J.

amendment be submitted at the next election for members of said “at election the ballot, said amendment shall vote on ballot be written or each there shall the words printed ‘For Amendment,’ Constitutional or‘Against Constitutional Amendment,’ elect,” as the voters are (italics mine). This bill on March passed Senate and the House on 3rd 10th, us, March other bill before known as the “Public Roads Amendment” passed Senate on March 2nd 10th, and the House on March and in 2 of sec. that Act it ballot,” was that the shall be vote “and provided upon each be words, ballot shall ‘For printed Constitutional Amend- ment,’ and Amendment,’ ‘Against Constitutional as now pre- scribed law.” It is impossible me understand how be it can said that the thus used these two in is language bills of substantially similar. When the members the Senate on two successive 2 and and the days members of the (March 3) House on the same enacted that (March solemnly day 10) the one case there shall written or be each printed upon ballot “ Amendment,’ ‘For Constitutional or ‘Against the Con- Amendment,’ elect,” stitutional as the voters shall and in the there other shall be each ballot printed upon “For Constitu- tional Amendment” and “Against Constitutional Amendment law,” as now did prescribed by they certainly not prescribe amendments, form for the same these if submitting un- plain, be given its ambiguous language ordinary meaning. To> one two shall be written or say expressions printed on of ballot, is the each same as that both thing saying shall ballot, on each seem would to be printed far going very under circumstances, State, but the laws of this any relating elections, show of that the distinction not one mere words, but is as one of substance and of regarded great importance. Prior to the of was State what called adoption “The Ballot,” Australian it was lawful to have on the ballot of for, names candidates voted the affirmative or negative vote on a constitutional amendment or other question sub- mitted, either A written or was made printed. change ch.

vol. 101 9 WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER.

>130

Dissenting Opinion by Boyd, J. .of of all 1890, Laws Baltimore applicable City 538 nine By counties. of that Act it was provided that “whenever a constitutional amendment or question other submitted to the .is vote-of such people, question candidates, the ballot after the list with printed .words ‘For’ each deter- ‘Against’ political party ;mine.” The cross-mark was then as the means adopted (X) the voter’s choice. Laws of indicating By ch. 236 State, that law was made to the whole applicable sec. 137 amended, was other that constitu- providing amongst things tional amendments should be in column to the placed right two ticket, squares placed margin, with boxes “shall be the word ‘For’ and of which printed upper ” or boxes the word squares ‘Against.’ of said lower ch. was then making many passed, The Act .amended, from time to time and the changes, gen- which I some of which has various provisions, now in force eral law will refer to. the Board of Code requires of Art.

Sec. (1904) and of city each county of Elections Supervisors ballots, other and amongst to provide Baltimore constitu- every contain a statement shall ballot “Each says to submitted to the question or other tional amendment than those election. Ballots other at any of the people vote elections, boards of supervisors the respective printed or article, shall not be cast of this to the provisions according hereinafter No- as election, provided. except any counted'in from shall voter prevent any contained this article thing the name marking proper place his ballot on writing he for whom already those printed then other any person office, and such votes shall be any. for to vote desire may had of such been person if the name as the same counted marked the voter.” the ballot printed the and twelve of City to Baltimore 54, applicable Section amendment, or any “A constitutional that counties, provides vote, the shall printed popular' be submitted question after names of the column, immediately follow in a separate m. VANDIVER. 131 Opinion by Dissenting Boyd J. counties, other candidates,” sec. that applicable same column the names the it “shall be the with printed Section “For Amend- candidates.” Constitutional requires to be ment” and Constitutional Amendment” “Against placed on “so that shall the ballot the same form or parallelogram indicate, in where voter here- clearly space way out, he shall to cast his inafter whether wish ballot pointed the constitutional amendment.” Section 66 pro- against mark, vides voter with indelible that the an “in pencil, a cross-mark the answer appropriate space, against (X) which he desires to “If the voter has give,” marked more names than there are to be elected persons there office, any an shall be mark on the ballot other than if cross-mark to the name square candidate, opposite or other than the name or names any candidate written by ballot, the voter on the in sec. his ballot provided shall not be counted.”

Without to other referring provisions, will be seen from above that election laws this State official require furnished, ballots to be on which shall be printed names of candidates and Constitutional Amendments and other ques- submitted, tions to be and that so they shall be as to prepared enable the voter place space cross-mark in or square the names of candidates and opposite the “For” or opposite Amendment, “Against” Constitutional as he may elect. The only writing name permitted or names of some per- son or other than ballot, those on persons printed and, with any mark than other exception, cross-mark requires ballot to be statute, as is rejected, stated in the expressly Miller, held Court Duvall v. Md. 697, and Coule- White, v. This bill han Md. does not authorize plac- on the “For ing ballot the Constitutional Amendment” and “Against Amendment,” Constitutional the one only other, or the “as elect,” the voter authorizes that one to be written or while the printed, law invalidates general if whole ballot either written on it. As the “Public Roads Amendment” that it shall provides be sub- WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. Opinion by Boyd,

Dissenting J. is to under the say, mitted “as now law”—that prescribed at variance those General we have seen how utterly Laws—and bill, form in some laws are with the this proposed by with the ma- most material I am unable to agree provisions, that “the are in effect substantially two similar.” One jority one be written or the other that the two says printed, shall be if is written the shall be either ballot void. printed ballots well be more dissimilar in their Can affecting seems therefore to me that the two houses of the results? did not use that author- Assembly only General language the construction of the but must majority, izes justice of the General be assumed that Assembly the members the}'' not intend this bill to be submitted on the ballot prepared did laws, unless also intended to they under the general repeal laws, in so far as conflicted with this That bill. they Governor, that without it to the could not do they submitting his or what the Constitution makes equiv- approval having that, doubt, to me to be all beyond possible alent to seems understand the majority I do not Court indeed that the houses For two contrary. conceding hold the the “form” in have the power prescribe General submitted, shall be it can- surely which a proposed so as to can far General Laws change not be said that for those on the ballots laws provided authorize placing to their without either contrary directly provisions, anything of the Governor for such change, obtaining approval short, a law In can only the bill over veto. passing the two houses of the Assem- law, repealed law, but must submit cannot themselves admittedly pass bly it to the Governor. referred to the Act as bill above title to this quoted i “and to sec. I of Art.

one to amend amendment to the the said quali- submission provide for and the rejection,” adoption voters of State fied Act to amend sec- us is “An only bill before the other title to of this three of the Constitution of Article tion thirty-four form of title usually be the seems to The latter State.” WAEFIELD vs. YANDIVEE. Dissenting Opinion by Boyd, J. in this for

adopted State, out the seven Acts submitting amendments referred to in the one majority opinion, only of them ch. used the form (1900, adopted elective 185), franchise bill. Whether there was reason the any special for know, difference I do not it certain is that this title gave special notice members the of the General that Assembly the bill not to amend this only proposed section of the Con- stitution, but to voters, the provide submission of it to the and when it did each ballot be provide “upon there shall written or words printed the ‘For the Constitutional Amend- ment,’ or the Constitutional ‘Against Amendment,’ the as elect,” voters shall what can this authority Court strike ” out the words or ? “written the bill had If been submitted to Governor, had it, and he could a ballot have approved been thrown out a beuause voter wrote “For Constitu- it, tional or instead of “Against” Amendment” on relying cross-mark? what could it have been Upon grounds done? The two theory houses of the appellee Gen- eral virtue of Assembly, have an amendment and to power propose submit it “in form to be General prescribed by As said Assembly.” they could the choice voter be zvrittenor if the printed, Gov- Act ernor had have been would to that extent approved are- Laws, ofthe of the General peal wi prohibiting iting voter’s choice on the ballot be at the next provided Novem- election, ber and can see no I reason it would then why have invalidated ballot to have thus written the on voter’s choice order But in to do that it question. required legislation— the action of the and Governor—and that is Legislature pre- 2 of this bill in- what of sec. cisely part apparently tended when to be it was passed. or,” eliminate the words “written the Court majority order to in- indeed were required place on the bill them. Of course after that given

terpretation done, the words “as the voters shall elect” can well con- fined to “For” if the words used “Against,”—but any written Assembly—“ pi'inted”—are given vs. VANDIVER. Opinion by Boyd,

Dissenting J. elect he the voter not had the which consideration, only right for, he but also which of two would ways vote would him vote, had authorized to do. as the General bill, connection form of this especially when^taken of bills amend- the universal practice submitting with the Governor, to which ha.d since adoption ments the prevailed Constitution, it certain that makes reasonably the present to when it was to the Governor was intended submit it and, it was I introduced, passed, although agree and when it to that was not do that necessary the of the Court rest with still to the amendment people, order submit Governor, to the bill to the not send it was determined when the houses of the in such as two been put shape it should have to The Public were authorized Assembly adopt. General un- was so drawn as to have submitted Amendment Roads if intention the such was the the General Laws and der so sub- this bill could likewise have been Assembly, General did follow that course none mitted, but not Of they plan. the the use of the article “the”—“For Con- that supposed us etc.,—could but Amendment,”' affect the question, stitutional to the when majority they say am not I prepared agree with used, it is connection in which means “and” “or” on that sub- deem it to more say I do not necessary although ject. with force attorneys ap-

It was argued great that a that inasmuch as the provides pro- Constitution pellee “in a to be be submitted prescribed posed form which can body propose General same Assembly,” the “form.” The majority can also amendments prescribe on not base its conclusions that ground does opinion that cannot be sustained to me that it is clear- this bill seems to be For that authorized conceding on that theory. if a “form” Assembly still adopts General for under the used on the ballots provided cannot be which laws Laws, without those provisions repealing General ballots,'there must enable to those legislation applicable Laws, as we to be done. Under that existing vs. VANDIVER. Boyd, Dissenting Opinion by J. McL] ballot, seen, on excepting can be no writing have there put any voter does indicated, any and if such as we have bal- the whole it would invalidate other on ballot writing never intended to Constitution the framers Surely lot. as such Assembly power houses of the General the two give under the general of election that. The officers appointed laws, could count those laws are sworn support not authorized law. on it ballot which had any writing laws, I speak repealing When no so can absolutely, I do not them mean repeal, to' effect, in so far make necessary be of only longer at which used at the election on the ballot to be the changes submitted. to be such amendment

If it be provision conceded the General mentioned would authorize above ballots, be submitted on separate that the amendment provide has not meet the for no been difficulty, machinery that would ballots, ballot-boxes, for such submission—neither provided are the election to be nor officers of election at provided next, such as the General Laws held November excepting authorize, the ballots and the ballot-boxes must course of officers such as those laws authorize and election laws must them under those governed by appointed with them which did become a bill in conflict not law. if omitted it be conceded that sec. have been alto- Or might and that the would be General going quite gether far) (which determine the submitting would then method pro- Laws amendment, is that answer to that the General simple posed that but on the did not see proper adopt plan, Assembly undertake to did include sec. 2 and did prescribe contrary should form in which this amendment be submitted. different i, I cannot understand And sec. with sec. having passed that, or, can ma- reject suggested how this Court out, with more than it any strike propriety jority opinion, that the As the Constitution provides proposed could sec. I. “in be submitted a form to be prescribed by amendment shall as the General did Assembly the General Assembly,” WARFIELD vs. VANDIVER. Opinion Dissenting by Boyd, J.

attempt form, prescribe it does seem to me that this Court on getting dangerous when it as it in ground says, effect does case, decision in this although that the says General Court) (not form, prescribe still as it has one which prescribed cannot be carried out under laws, existing can be submitted in a form different from that the General Assem- bly prescribed. With for the great respect those opinion differ, with me it does seem to me that such course results in not only submitting amendment without Governor, action of the but in so far as the method’ of sub- it, without mitting authority Assembly, more speak accurately,- contrary intention, to its ex- plainly pressed,

I cannot be influenced that the form argument used in this bill is the same as that generally heretofore adopted n submitting amendments to the Constitution—even since the election laws present For, have been in force. as I said, have one of every them had the already signature attached, and thereby removed all as to questions whether bills those amendments embraced leg- did, islation, for, if were they accordance adopted with the constitutional which must be followed in order to enact They laws. could therefore be construed to author- ize of the General Laws to the extent change necessary such forms on the ballot place under the General prepared that, Laws. But no was raised in the beyond question Courts them, as to and the was therefore never question passed on. If some voter had written “For” or the Constitu- “Against elected, ballot, tional Amendment” as he on the and the ques- valid, tion had been raised whether that was or it whether ballot, invalidated his the Courts could have been called on it, to determine but as such raised, no was ever question so aware, far as I am it has never been heretofore decided. The form used in this and other bills seems to have been taken from the the submit- provision it It was there said “At the ting people. said election vs. YANDIYBR- by Dissenting Opinion Boyd, J. Md]. ballot, there shall be each ballot vote upon ‘For the

shall be written or words Constitution’ printed Constitution,’ or elect.” At may as voter ‘Against no time, afterwards, and for over there twenty years official ballot and the voter could cast a ballot provided, can- choice as to which there was written or either printed doubt that submitted. No one can didates and questions said, they meant what when they framers of the Constitution on, there was voted that when the Constitution provided “For the written or words Constitution” should be printed Constitution,’ elect,” and as the voter or “Against “written said in this bill Assembly when the General ’ ? Surely meant only should we why they printed printed say because authorized to reach that conclusion merely we are not the “wirtten”— the means for have not provided using it is manifest that when they passed as perfectly especially au- thus to submit Governor and they expected bill be or printed. either written thorize the choice voter of the Gen- to add that action scarcely necessary The case of Monroe is not self-executing. eral v. Wells, There would seem to settle that question. Md. contested, and of the Circuit Court was the election Clerk which Dr. House decided Wells against Delegates, spc. contest, heard the under of Art. of the Constitution him, a new election and, ordered determined it having against But inasmuch section. within thirty days, required one, in such law had the former as the new election repealed for any purposes as to make way “absolutely inoperative not hold officers did whatever,” as the former election into office until after new did not over, go and the officers no election, machinery by there was special for the time fixed the order of held, we said “That could be which it with the Consti- accordance although of Delegates, House affirmative legis- tution, self-executing, required was not out, election since the special carried in order lation supervisors, judges registration, held without could The result statute force.” a ballot-boxes provided REED, REED vs. Syllabus. was there could be no election as special required by Constitution, because the for it had machinery holding case, been So in provided. this has attempted submit in a way that my could not done under opinion laws, our election existing did not provide machinery form submitting pre- them, scribed I by it could not be thought submitted. For these reasons I was unable to with the. agree majority the. as to the Court effect of this bill.

I am authorized to say that Pearce and Schmucker Judges concur in this opinion.

(Filed April 5th, 1905.)

FRANCES P. REED vs. S. AMOS REED et al. Voluntary Bill to Vacate Deed Agent—Burden . Confidential of Proof by Upon-a vacate, by bill a mother to because obtained undue influence! voluntary son, deed executed her to her who was also her confi- agent, proof upon dential the burden of grantee to establish that free, voluntary grantor. deed was the and unbiased act of the alleged bill in this case had she been induced to execute a Plaintiff’s conveying property deed consequence certain to her son in of undue in- upon fluence exerted at her him a time when she was excited and put by threatening anonymous prayed in fear letter. The bill that the (cid:127) deed Held, evidence, be declared void and set aside. thht voluntary grantor deed was act of the and had not been extorted by fraud, from her undue influence abuse of confidential rela- tions. from the Appeal Circuit for Kent County, Court where the was delivered following opinion and concurred J., Martin, C. J., Pearce, Brown, J. This suit was instituted for the aside purpose having set a deed from the on plaintiff defendant executed D., tenth of October, A. nineteen day two, hundred and on

Case Details

Case Name: Warfield v. Vandiver

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date Published: Apr 5, 1905

Citation: 60 A. 538

Court Abbreviation: Md.