recent case in Louisiana objection was made to an amendment on the ground that it had not been read in full on three separate days in each house. The supreme court of Louisiana very sensibly took the view that the constitution of that state did not require a proposed amendment to be read in full on three separate days, and said: "It seems evident, then, that when the constitution prescribes legislative readings it means the ordinary parliamentary reading by title, or in such other manner as the particular house shall direct." 35

36

Most of the constitutions require the entry of a proposed amendment upon the legislative journals, together with the ayes and nays. By most of the constitutions making this requirement 3 the provision is simply that the amendment shall be entered upon the journals of the two houses, and this language has given rise to some judicial discussion as to what form of entry is necessary. Where the constitution specifies entry in full on the journals of the two houses, as is done in certain cases, 37 there is of course no question; but where full entry is not specifically required the question has often arisen as to whether the entry of the proposed amendment in full upon the journals is necessary, or if a mere identifying entry or journal reference is sufficient.

35 Saunders v. Board of Liquidation, 110 La., 313 (1903).

36 Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Rhode Island requires that the ayes and nays be published with the proposed amendment, and in Alabama the vote upon a proposed amendment is required to be "taken by yeas and nays and entered on the journals."

37 Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Montana. The language of the Missouri constitution seems to require full entry but is not clear.

There is perhaps no question but that the constitutions which require journal entry intended to require a full entry of the proposed amendment, for legislative journals would ordinarily, as a matter of course, contain an entry of action upon amendments without any such requirement; the provision seems to have been introduced for the very purpose of requiring full entry. But where a legislature has construed the language differently, and has not made a full entry, and the proposed amendment has been adopted by the people, the question properly presents itself to the court that the language is not perfectly clear, and that if possible the view should be taken which would uphold the validity of such an amendment. And this in fact has been the more usual attitude of the courts.

38

38 Where one constitution required entry in the journals and under it entry by title had been customary, the adoption of a new constitution with the same provision would, it seems, be an approval of the liberal construction, for if the other rule had been desired, the framers of the new constitution could easily have inserted a specific requirement of full entry. Journal entry in full is certainly not now of great practical importance, and this matter is one with reference to which the courts can well afford to be liberal.

Of some interest is the report of a joint committee of the South Carolina legislature upon this subject in 1906. An amendment substituting biennial for annual legislative sessions had been submitted to and adopted by the people in November, 1904. A joint committee was appointed to consider the question of the legislature's ratifying the amendment. The committee recommended that the amendment be not ratified, and said that it had not been properly adopted because not entered on the journals of the two houses; entry had been by title only, and the constitution simply required that proposed amendments should "be entered on the journals." In view of the cases discussed below, it may be questioned whether the supreme court of South Carolina would have taken a view as strict as that of the legislative committee; it should be remembered also that it is entirely within the discretion of the legislature of South Carolina as to whether it shall ratify an amendment adopted by the people and the proposed amendment in this case would probably not have been ratified, even if the journal

In Iowa the stricter view is held. Here the constitution requires simply that the proposed amendments shall be entered on the journals, but the supreme court of that state held that entry by title only was insufficient, and declared invalid constitutional amendments approved by the people, because the legislative entry was deemed insufficient." The more general judicial interpretation of such provisions has, however, been different. In California the court wavered for a while but finally held an identifying reference in the legislative journals to be sufficient; 40 and the same view has been adopted by the courts of Maryland,*1 Kansas,** South Dakota, and Florida." In a recent Michigan case the court said: "We are impressed that those cases which require an entry of the resolution in full as passed have much the better of the argument," but did not find it necessary to pass upon this question because it found the entry to be sufficient in either case. The supreme court of Nebraska has also taken the view that full entry is required, although its statement with respect to this matter was perhaps not necessary to the decision of the case before the court."

45

43

entry had been thought sufficient.

The committee's view, therefore, has little weight as a precedent. South Carolina House Journal, 1906, pp. 47-49.

39 Koehler v. Hill, 60 Iowa, 543 (1883); State v. Brookhart, 113 Iowa, 250 (1901).

40 People v. Strother, 67 Cal., 624; Thomason v. Ruggles, 69 Cal., 465; Oakland Paving Co. v. Hilton, 69 Cal., 479; Oakland Paving Co. v. Tompkins, 72 Cal., 5; Thomason v. Ashworth, 73 Cal., 73.

41 Worman v. Hagan, 78 Md., 152.

42 Constitutional Prohibitory Amendment, 24 Kan., 700.

43 State v. Herried, 10 S. D., 109.

44 West v. State, 50 Fla., 154.

45 People v. Loomis, 135 Mich., 556. In re Senate File No. 31, 25 Neb., 864, 883-886.

Where entry in full is required there is of course little room for argument, but even here where cases have arisen the Colorado court has been very liberal in its attitude. In Nesbit v. People 6 it was found that the senate and house journal entries of a proposed amendment did not agree and that full entry was not correctly made, but the court decided to overlook this informality and sustain the amendment; and the same position was taken in the later case of People v. Sours.*7 In the Michigan case of People v. Loomis, referred to above, the court, while leaning strongly to the view that entry in full was necessary although this was not specifically required, took the position that even if entry in full were required a slight informality in the entry would be overlooked; here an amendment had been proposed in the house and entered in full; the senate amended the proposal and entered it in full as altered; the house then adopted the senate amendments, but did not enter the amended proposal in full on its journals, and such entry was said to be sufficient to comply with a requirement of full entry. In the Montana case of Durfee v.

46 619 Colo., 441.

48

47 31 Colo., 369. In Colorado, where "full entry" is specifically required, the rule as interpreted by the courts is more liberal than in Iowa, where there is no such specific requirement. The Kansas and Colorado courts have called attention to the fact that if the rule regarding journal entry is strictly construed an amendment may be defeated by the carelessness of a clerical employee, even after its approval by the people. Constitutional Prohibitory Amendment, 24 Kan., 711. People v. Sours, 31 Colo., 382. In the Kansas case Judge Brewer said: "The records of the proceedings of the two houses are made, not by the houses themselves, but by clerical officers. True, they are under the control of the respective houses, but in fact the records are made by clerks. May they defeat the legislative will? The constitution does not make amendments dependent upon their approval or their action."

48 The facts in this case are almost parallel with those in Re Senate File No. 31, 25 Neb., 864, 883, 884.

Harper," full entry upon the journals of the two houses was not made although this was specifically required, and the proposed amendment was therefore held invalid. Similarly in Nevada, where an entry upon the journals was required, no entry whatever was made, and the proposed amendment was held invalid because of failure to comply with a specific constitutional requirement."

The question has frequently arisen whether, under constitutions giving the governor the veto power over legislation, this executive power also extends to legislative acts proposing constitutional amendments. Several of the earlier constitutions 51 specifically gave this power to the governor, but this practice did not continue, and the only constitutions now in force which contain provisions regarding the governor's participation in the proposal of amendments are those of Kentucky, Delaware and Alabama; these constitutions expressly provide that the governor's approval shall not be necessary. The practice, however, developed, and has in some cases continued of submitting for the governor's approval resolutions or bills proposing constitutional amendments.52 This practice still continues in Arkansas 53 and in some other states. In Arkansas, such

49 22 Mont., 354.

50 State v. Tufly, 19 Nev., 391. In this case it is said that "no entry of the proposed amendment was made upon the journal of either house," but it may be that the court considered "entry" to be equivalent to "full entry," and meant simply that full entry had not been made. However, an examination of the journals shows no entry of any sort which can be identified as that of the amendment under consideration.

51 Delaware, 1792, 1831; Louisiana, 1845.

52 Jameson, Constitutional Conventions, 4th ed., pp. 492, 593. See also Green v. Weller, 32 Miss., 677.

53 Arkansas acts, 1903, p. 485. In Arkansas there is a statute which specifically provides that the governor shall have a veto over proposed amendments. As to the binding force of such a statute see Pp. 152-154.