necessary steps to submit to the electors
at the next November election the Con-
stitution framed by the constitutional
convention. Three of the justices dis-
sented. Even the majority of the court
did not agree among themselves as to
the reasons in support of the decision.
The position of the relator is most clearly
described in the dissenting opinion of
Hooker, J. (151 Mich. 373, 115 N.W.
442) as follows: "The contention of the
relator is, in substance, that the legis-
lature has attempted an act not within
its power, viz., to fix the time of the
submission of the proposed Constitution
to vote by the people, and he asserts
that such is one of the subjects within
the power of the convention. This asser-
tion we understand does not rest upon
any express declaration, either constitu-
tional or legislative, that such power be
conferred upon the convention, but
upon the proposition that the conven-
tion, when organized, becomes a body
strictly representative of the sovereign —
i.e., the electors in the aggregate — that
it acts for the sovereign, and in its name,
and has become possessed by its ( the sov-
ereign's) authority of all the powers
inherent in the sovereign, which the
sovereign could have exercised had it —
the people — been assembled en masse."
Several justices took the position that the
existing Constitution fixed the date for
the submission to the people of a revi-
sion proposed by the constitutional con-
vention and that consequently the fixing
of a different date in the law calling the
convention was invalid as in violation
of the constitutional command. How-
ever, Grant, Ch. J., with whom Blair, J.,
concurred, took the broader ground that
under the existing Constitution the leg-
islature had no power to limit the pow-
ers of the constitutional convention. He
said (151 Mich. 340, 115 N.W. 430):
"The sole power conferred upon the
|
legislature in regard to changes in the
Constitution is confined to three things:
(1) To submit to the people single
amendments. Section 1, art. 20. (2-) To
submit to the electors the question
whether they desire a general revision of
the Constitution. Section 2, art. 20.
(3) If the electors so desire, 'to provide
by law for the election of delegates to
such convention.' Section 2, art. 20. By
necessary implication the legislature is
prohibited from any control over the
method of revising the Constitution.
The convention is an independent and
sovereign body whose sole power and
duty are to prepare and submit to the
people a revision of the Constitution, or
a new Constitution to take the place of
the old one. It is elected by the people,
answerable to the people, and its work
must be submitted to the people through
their electors for approval or disap-
proval." In his dissenting opinion,
Hooker, J., took the view that the fixing
by the legislature of the time when the
proposed Constitution was to be sub-
mitted to the vote by the people was
valid and binding, but added (151
Mich. 379, 115 N.W. 444): "In what
has been and is to be said there is no
intention to dispute the fact that the
convention has a sphere in which the
legislature cannot intrude, a discretion
which it cannot control, but that dis-
cretion has its clear limitations."
The power of the legislature to limit
the powers of a constitutional conven-
tion with respect to the procedure to be
adopted by the convention was denied
in Goodrich v. Moore, 2 Minn. 61, Gil
49, 72 Am. Dec. 784 (1858). The plain-
tiff, as state printer, relying upon a legis-
lative appropriation, claimed the right
to print the journals and proceedings of
the constitutional convention, while the
defendant claimed the right to do the
printing under a contract with the presi-
353
|
