which should be referred all articles of the
constitution after they shall have been passed
upon by the convention, to be examined and
printed for the use of the convention prior to
their final adoption." All those articles were
printed, and every member had an oppor-
tunity to examine them. It was made a part
of the duty of that committee to make those
suggestions.
Now I submit that we cannot fairly com-
prehend the details of the amendments re-
ported by the committee of revision of this
body without having them printed. If the
convention is to remain in session until to-
morrow, I see no reason why, when the com-
mittee proposes any material changes, they
should not be printed and acted on to-mor-
row. If it is the determination of members
to close the session to-night, of course it
would be impracticable to have these amend-
ments printed. I can only express my regret
at being called upon to act upon very import-
ant articles without having an opportunity
to know the exact import of them.
From the reading of the first section of the
article on amendments to the constitution as
proposed to be changed by the committee on
revision, I presume that it means that to
adopt an amendment by the people after it
has received a three-fifths vote of the legisla-
ture, it must receive a majority of the votes
cast at that election, if I am correct, I would
ask whether that should be so? If there are
more votes for than against the amendment
is not that all that should be required? I
would ask for information, whether this sec-
tion requires a majority of the whole number
of votes given at that election, or merely a
majority of the votes cast for and against
the proposed amendment to the constitution ?
Mr. EARLE. The section says expressly " a
majority of the qualified votes cast at said
election." There is another change proposer
in the language of this section. The article
as passed by the convention says that "either
branch of the general assembly may propose
amendments to this constitution." The com-
mittee recommend that the phraseology be
changed, by saying, that the general assem-
bly may propose any amendment or amend
ments to this constitution which shall be
agreed to by three-fifths of all the members
elected to both houses.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is the same in sub-
stance. There can be no objection to that.
Mr. EARLE. The committee next recom
mend that all amendments to the constitution
proposed by the general assembly shall be
printed with the laws passed at the same ses-
sion and submitted to the qualified electors
of the State for their confirmation or rejec-
tion. if confirmed by a majority of the
qualified votes cast at the election, the gover-
nor shall, by proclamation, declare the same
to be part of the constitution of the State.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would suggest the pro- |
priety of having this report recommitted to
the committee on revision, with the view of
having inserted here what I suppose was de-
signed by the convention—that the majority
of the votes for and against should decide the
question. That is not the case with the sec-
tion as it now stands. Suppose that there are
ten thousand votes given for and against
some candidate on the day of election, and
only three thousand votes are cast for the
proposed amendment to the constitution.
Seven thousand of the voters say nothing
about it, and care nothing about it, or they
fail to attend to it properly. There is not
a vote cast against the proposed amendment.
There is no evidence that there is a voter in
the county who is opposed to it. Yet the
votes affirmatively given do not operate to
adopt the amendment, because they do not
amount to a majority of all the votes cast at
that election. I presume that was not the
intention of the convention, and if not, then
there should be some change in this phrase-
ology.
Mr. STIRLING. The section as reported by
the committee provides that the vote upon
any proposed amendment to the constitu-
tion shall be taken upon the day of the elec-
tion of members to the general assembly,
and it goes on to say that if a majority of
the votes cast at said election are in favor of
the proposed amendment, then it shall be
adopted. Now the argument of the gentle-
man from Kent (Mr. Chambers) is perfectly
correct. If two thousand people in the
county vote for State officers, and only five
hundred vote in favor of the proposed change
in the constitution, although no one votes
against it, because a majority of the votes
cast at that election were not cast in favor of
the proposed amendment.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I have no objection
whatever to having the phraseology of this
section modified by the insertion of the ne-
cessary words. But I do not think it neces-
sary as a question of law, disagreeing in that
respect with both the gentleman from Kent,
(Mr. Chambers) and my colleague (Mr Stir-
ling.) A majority of the votes cast is re-
quired to carry any measure or candidate at
an election. In the case supposed by the
gentleman from Kent, there are three thou-
sand votes for the proposed amendment to
the constitution, and seven thousand blanks.
In that case the blanks are not counted at all.
So far as the amendment is concerned there
are but three thousand votes cast at that elec-
tion. An amendment to the constitution
stands precisely upon the same ground as a
candidate for governor. The candidate for
governor to be elected must have a majority
of the votes cast. Suppose there are 100,000
votes cast at an election in the State for mem-
bers of the house of delegates. And suppose
a candidate for governor receives 35,000
votes, and no other candidate receives any, |
