presumed to ratify the terms of the legis-
lative call, which thereby becomes the
basis of the authority delegated to the
convention."
To the same effect is Re Perez, 146
La. 373, 83 So. 657 (1920), involving a
provision in the new Constitution pur-
porting to confer upon the Supreme
Court the authority, not existing under
the former Constitution, to fill a vacancy
in the office of district judge, caused by
death or resignation or otherwise.
Also to the same effect is Wunderlich
v. New Orleans R. & Light Co., 145 La.
21, 81 So. 741 (1919), involving a pro-
vision in the new Constitution purport-
ing to change the jurisdiction of the
courts of appeal.
See State ex rel. For tier v. Capdevielle,
104 La. 561, 29 So. 215 (1901), where
the court observed that "the people
when they voted for the holding of the
convention, voted for it to be held 'in
accordance with Act No. 52 of 1896,'
thus instructing their delegates, elected
at the same time, to observe the limita-
tions placed upon the power of the con-
vention by the act of the legislature."
See also State v. Jones, 151 La. 714,
92 So. 310 (1922), where the court said
that "with the exception of certain limi-
tations and prohibitions relative to the
indebtedness of the state and its polit-
ical subdivisions, the tenure and sal-
aries of officers, and the removal of the
state capital, the power of the conven-
tion to frame and adopt a new Consti-
tution was as full as could be conveyed
by the legislature and the people of the
state."
For cases recognizing the enabling
statute as the source of the powers of the
convention, see Louisiana R. & Nav.
Co. v. Madere, 124 La. 635, 50 So. 609
(1909); Fender v. Gray, 149 La. 184,
352
|
88 So. 786 (1921), supra, footnote 6;
Lobrano v. Plaquemines Parish, 150 La.
14, 90 So. 423 (1921).
CASES DENYING POWER
Assuming that the legislature was
authorized to call and called a constitu-
tional convention without an affirmative
vote by the people, its power to limit the
powers of such convention in the law
calling it was denied in Re Opinion
to Governor, 55 R.I. 56, 178 A. 433
(1935), supra, II.
In at least one case, Carton v. Secre-
tary of State, 151 Mich. 337, 115 N.W.
429 (1908), the power of a legislature
to limit the powers of a constitutional
convention, as regards the date of the
election on which its work was to be
submitted to popular vote, was denied,
where it appears from the facts that the
law containing the limitation, though
apparently passed before the people
elected the candidates to the constitu-
tional convention, was not enacted until
after the people had voted to require the
legislature to provide for such an elec-
tion. Under a Constitution which re-
quired that the question of a general
revision be submitted to the electors and
if the electors voted for such revision,
the legislature at its next session should
provide by law for the election of dele-
gates to the convention, the legislature
passed a law calling such convention,
and provided therein that the proposed
Constitution be submitted to a vote of
the people at the April election of 1908,
but the convention, not having com-
pleted its work until February 21, 1908,
provided that the instrument should be
submitted at the general election in
November, 1908. As against his conten-
tion that the convention had no power
to fix a date other than that provided
by the legislature, the secretary of state
was directed by mandamus to take the
|
