the question; otherwise the answer was
in the negative. In support of this
answer the judges pointed out a signifi-
cant distinction according to whether
the convention is called by the legis-
lature alone or called by the legislature
after an affirmative vote therefor on the
part of the people. They said (55 R.I.
98, 178 A. 452) : "In the first instance
the legislature summons the convention
without permitting the people to limit
the power of their delegates or to pre-
scribe the manner in which they shall
proceed to perform the task intrusted
to them. Under such circumstances, to
permit the general assembly to set
bounds to the authority of the conven-
tion is to exalt the legislature, the agent,
above its principal, the people. This
cannot be. In such a case the general
assembly is held to have summoned the
people to sit, by their delegates, in con-
vention untrammeled by rules or re-
straints of any kind that will interfere
with the performance of its proper func-
tions. This is the prevailing view of the
authority of such conventions and ap-
pears to be the logical view. In the
second instance, the legislature sum-
mons the convention only after the
people have expressed their will to this
effect. If, at the time the question of
calling the convention is submitted to
them, the people are informed of the
scope of the convention and the manner
in which it is to conduct its delibera-
tions and report its results by virtue of
the act of the general assembly specify-
ing such matters, then a convention
called in this manner will be limited as
therein set forth and the convention will
then be bound to confine itself within
the stated limits of the act of the assem-
bly. The reason for this is that it is the
people, under such circumstances, who
prescribe the conditions in the legisla-
tive act by approving the call for the
344
|
convention in accordance with the pro-
visions of such act. The legislature
merely proposes the conditions. It is the
vote of the people for the convention
that ratifies them and makes them bind-
ing upon the delegates. 6 R.C.L. 27,
§ 18. For this reason, in order that the
delegates be so bound, it is necessary for
the general assembly to propose the con-
ditions before the election is held, and
to take all necessary steps to bring them
to the attention of the people seasonably
before the time of voting at the elec-
tion." Similarly, as to question (2) it
was stated (55 R.I. 99, 178 A. 452) that
if the general assembly calls the conven-
tion, then the convention itself may dis-
regard any legislative directions for rati-
fication of its work by the people and
prescribe a method of its own.
However, this question was also an-
swered unconditionally in the affirma-
tive, primarily on the ground that all
the legislative precedents in the state
were in support of the view that the
legislature can provide that the work of
the convention should be submitted to
the people for ratification or rejection,
and that whether prescribed by the gen-
eral assembly or the convention, in
either case a reference to the people for
their approval is a necessary and final
step without which the work of the con-
vention is lacking legality. With respect
to question (3) the opinion says (55
R.I. 100, 178 A. 453) : "If this question
refers only to the matter of making a
final count of the votes and officially
reporting the result so that it may be
duly registered and recorded as an
authentic act of the people, we think,
for the reasons given in answer to ques-
tion (e) [question 2, supra], that such
act of the general assembly would be
valid. If the question refers to the
power of the general assembly to pro-
vide by law that the vote of a majority
|
