tion. The secretary of state ignored the legislative proposal, and an action was brought to compel him to submit the proposed amendment to the people. The court said that the power to propose amendments is legislative in character, and that the proposal was therefore void, because not within the power of the special session."

67

As already suggested, a number of states require the action of two successive legislatures for the proposal of an amendment. Under such a requirement it is necessary of course that each proposed amendment be approved in the same form by the two legislatures. But where the first legislature makes several distinct proposals, each such proposal must stand alone, and any one of them may be approved or rejected by the succeeding legislature, even though the first legislature may have included all of its proposals in one resolution. In Trustees of University of North Carolina v. McIver " the first assembly proposed seventeen amendments in one bill, and the second assembly adopted only eight of the seventeen, framing them in eight

66 People v. Curry, 130 Cal., 82 (1900).

68

67 Koehler v. Hill, 60 Iowa, 543, 549, is based in part on the ground that the proposed amendment as entered in the senate journal of the first legislature did not agree with the entries in the journals of the two houses of the second legislature; these entries might have been said, therefore, to show that the action of the two legislatures was not the same. But the evidence in this case did show that both legisAlatures acted upon the same proposal; the only defect was that one journal entry was not properly made.

68" Where a constitution authorizes specific amendments thereof by the action of two successive general assemblies, and several amendments are proposed by one general assembly, and one or more of them are rejected by the next general assembly, those which have received the approval of both are valid as parts of the constitution, the proceedings being otherwise regular." Jameson, Constitutional Conventions, 4th ed., p. 618.

69 72 N. C., 76 (1875).

70

separate bills. It was contended that the seventeen proposals must hang together, and that the second legislature must approve all or none, but the court held that each proposed amendment was independent, even when combined with others in a single bill, and that the action of the second assembly was a proper one. A similar position was taken by the supreme court of Rhode Island in an opinion rendered at the request of the senate of that state in 1909. Here the first legislature had proposed an amendment which really comprised three distinct subjects, and the court was of the opinion that these subjects might be separated and submitted separately by the second legislature. It said that the numbering and arrangement of sections were not of the substance of the amendment and might be changed, but that the proposals themselves "should still appear in the same form of words as they were in the original resolution." The adoption of any other principle than that laid down in Trustees v. McIver would reduce materially the power of the second legislature. The constitutions which require two legislative actions evidently intended that the second legislature should be free to adopt or reject each specific proposal of the first, and did not contemplate that 70 In re Opinion of Supreme Court, 71 Atl., 798.

99 71

71 The language of the Rhode Island constitution provides that amendments shall "be published and submitted to the electors in the mode provided in the act of approval" by the second legislature, and justified the separation of one amendment into several proposals as was done here; in other states it would seem that a single proposed amendment might not be split up into several proposals by the second legislature, but that it would have to be acted upon as a whole both by such legislature and by the people. Reference is made by the Rhode Island court to legislative actions in that state in 1854 precisely parallel with those in Trustees v. McIver: the first assembly proposed nine distinct articles of amendment in a single resolution; the succeeding assembly approved only five of the nine and submitted them separately to the people.

the first legislature should attempt to bind the second to the adoption or rejection of a whole group of proposed amendments.

To this point the discussion of the actual steps in the amending process has related to legislative action purely. It will now be well to consider some questions which relate to the submission of proposed amendments, and of these the most important are those relating: (1) To the publication of legislative proposals. (2) To the form of submission, especially with reference to the separate submission of each legislative proposal. (3) To the elections, whether general or special, at which such proposals must be submitted; and (4) to the popular vote required for the adoption of proposed amendments.

Publication of Proposed Amendments

In all of the states except Indiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Carolina the constitutions contain some provisions regarding the publication of proposed amendments. Mississippi requires that public notice be given for three months, Michigan requires that proposed amendments be published and posted, Connecticut and Minnesota provide simply for publication with the laws; while California, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Virginia simply provide for publication without specifying how proposed amendments shall be published.73 Of the fourteen states which require two legis

72

72 In Nevada, where publication for three months is required, publication in the state laws was held sufficient in State v. Grey, 21 Nev., 378.

73 But Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Virginia do specify as to the time within which publication shall be made.

74

lative actions for the proposal of amendments, eleven require some form of publication after the first and before the second legislative action, but only two, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, require publication both before the second legislative action and before the final submission of the proposal to the people. In the states which require publication the more usual provision is that the proposals shall be published in at least one newspaper in every county of the state; Delaware requires publication in three newspapers of each county, Pennsylvania in two newspapers; Vermont requires publication in the "principal newspapers of the state;" Georgia in one or more papers in each congressional district. The period of publication specified in the constitutions varies from four weeks in Missouri and Colorado to six months in Arkansas, Ohio, and Tennessee, but three months is the period fixed by most of the constitutions.

Where a constitution contains specific provisions regarding the publication of proposed amendments such provisions must be substantially complied with in order that amendments may be validly adopted. For example, the Montana constitution requires the secretary of state to publish proposed amendments for three months before the election at which they are to be submitted; the case of State v. Tooker " involved proposed amendments which had been published for only two weeks, and the amendments were held invalid although ratified by a popular vote. As a rule where there has been substantial compliance with the con

75

74 Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin. Indiana requires no publication.

75 15 Mont., 8 (1894). See also State v. Board of Commissioners of Silver Bow County, 34 Mont., 426 (1906), where a similar question was sought to be raised.

stitutional provisions, this is deemed sufficient.76 For example, the Nebraska constitution requires that a proposed amendment be "published once each week in at least one newspaper in each county where a newspaper is published, for three months immediately preceding" the election. In the case of State ex. rel. Thompson v. Winnett," the publication of a proposed amendment in one county had been made for one week less than the time required, but the court held this defect to be immaterial, and not to defeat the proposed amendment. So in Missouri the constitution requires publication of an amendment in each county for four consecutive weeks before the election, and in Russell v. Croy 78 those opposed to the contested amendment urged that this requirement made necessary four publications in each county within twenty-eight days before the election. The court said: "If we must construe the constitution in this respect as strictly as appellants would have us construe it, and if we must say that four weeks there means twenty-eight days, then we must say that the four publications called for must have occurred within the twentyeight days next preceding November 6th, that is, from Tuesday, October the 9th, to November the 5th, both inclusive, not sooner than the one nor later than the other date. But in a county where the newspaper was not published on Tuesday, the publication could not begin on the 9th, and if Saturday was the day of issue, the first insertion within the twenty-eight days next preceding the election would be on the 13th. If the officer had begun

76 For the judicial attitude in general upon this matter see State v. Grey, 21 Nev., 378 (1893), and Commonwealth v. Griest, 196 Pa. St., 396 (1900). See also Prohibitory Amendment Cases, 24 Kan., 700, 710.

77 778 Nebraska, 379 (1907).

78 164 Mo., 69, 93, 95 (1901).